LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OP 
HA 


HISTOET   OF   THE   UNITED   STATES 

FROM  THE  COMPROMISE  OF  1850 
TO 

THE  McKINLEY-BRYAN  CAMPAIGN 
OF  1896 

VOL.   I 


HISTORY 

OF  THE 

UNITED    STATES 

FROM 

THE  COMPROMISE  OF  1850 

TO 

THE  McKINLEY-BRYAN  CAMPAIGN 
OF  1896 

BY 

JAMES  FORD  RHODES,  LL.D.,  D.LITT. 

IN  EIGHT  VOLUMES 

VOL.  I 

185O-1854 


KENNIKAT  PRESS,  INC./PORT  WASHINGTON,  N.  Y. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

Volume  1  copyright  1892  by  James  Ford  Rhode; 
Volume  2  copyright  1892  by  James  Ford  Rhodes 


e  3  copyright  1895  by  James  Ford  Rhode 
me  4  copyright  1899  by  James  Ford  Rhode 
me  5  copyright  1904  by  James  Ford  Rhode 
me  6  copyright  1906  by  James  Ford  Rhode 
me  7  copyright  1906  by  James  Ford  Rhode 
me  8  copyright  1919  by  James  Ford  Rhode 


The  eight  volumes  reissued  by  Kennikat  Press  in  1967 
by  arrangement  with  the  estate  of  James  Ford  Rhodes 

Library  of  Congress  Catalog    Card  No:  67-27637 
Manufactured  in  the  United  States  of  America 


Note:     Volume  Nine  of  the  History  of  the  United  States 
also  published  by  Kennikat  Press  under  the  title 
"The  McKinley  and    Roosevelt  Administrations 
1897-1909"  and  may  be  ordered  separately. 


£ 


PREFACE 

A  NEW  and  cheaper  edition  of  my  History  is  offered  to 
the  public  because  it  has  seemed  desirable  to  make  a  re- 
arrangement so  as  to  bring  together  in  the  same  volume 
related  matters  and  also  in  order  that  the  volumes  may  be 
more  nearly  of  a  size. 

This  edition  has  been  thoroughly  revised  from  time  to 
time  in  various  ways.  The  preparation  of  my  Oxford 
Lectures  and  my  one  volume  History  of  the  Civil  War 
afforded  me  the  opportunity  to  go  over  the  material  for 
the  ante-bellum  period  and  to  make  a  searching  review  of 
the  story  of  the  Civil  War  itself. 

On  account  of  the  re-arrangement  of  the  volumes  it  has 
been  found  impracticable  to  give  in  every  case  the  proper 
pages  for  the  ante  references.  In  such  instances  the  pag- 
ing referred  to  is  that  of  my  earlier  volumes. 

Boston,  1920. 


CONTENTS 

or 

THE    FIRST    VOLUME 


CHAPTER   I 

PAOB 

Introduction 1 

Negro  slaves  brought  to  Virginia 3 

Growth  of  slavery 3 

Introduction  of  slavery  into  Georgia 5 

Slavery  in  the  northern  colonies 6 

English  opinion  of  slavery  and  the  slave-trade 7 

Creditable  attitude  of  Virginia  towards  slavery 8 

Decision  of  Lord  Mansfield 9 

Washington's  and  Jefferson's  opinions  of  slavery 10 

Franklin's  opinion  of  slavery 11 

Extent  of  the  slave-trade 11 

The  Declaration  of  Independence 12 

Slavery  in  the  Revolutionary  War 13 

Legislation  of  Vermont,  Pennsylvania,  and  Massachusetts 14 

Jefferson  Ordinance  of  1784 15 

Ordinance  of  1787 16 

Slavery  and  the  Constitution 17 

America  in  advance  of  Europe  in  moral  attitude  towards  slavery  20 

Washington  as  a  slave-holder,  and  his  opinion  of  slavery 21 

Position  of  Hamilton  and  Madison 21 

Jefferson  and  John  Adams 22 

Slavery  question  in  the  First  Congress 23 

The  first  Fugitive  Slave  law,  1793 24 

Effect  of  the  invention  of  the  cotton-gin 26 


iv  CONTENTS 

Purchase  of  Louisiana 27 

Belief  in  1804  that  slavery  was  diminishing  in  power 28 

Prohibition  of  the  foreign  slave-trade 29 

The  question  of  the  admission  of  Missouri 30 

Growing  importance  of  the  Senate 33 

Speech  of  William  Pinkney 34 

The  Missouri  Compromise 36 

The  Missouri  Compromise,  a  political  necessity 38 

Beginning  of  the  Nullification  trouble 40 

John   C.  Calhoun 41 

Debate  between  Webster  and  Hayne 42 

Calhoun  and  Nullification 44 

Nullification  Ordinance  of  South  Carolina 46 

Compromise  Tariff  of  1833 49 

Debate  between  Webster  and  Calhoun 50 

William  Lloyd  Garrison  and  the  Liberator 53 

The  Nat  Turner  Insurrection 56 

Southern  excitement  regarding  the  abolitionist  movement ....  57 

American  Anti-slavery  Society 59 

Mob  violence  at  the  North  directed  against  the  abolitionists. .  61 

The  influence  of  Garrison 62 

Dr.  Channing  on  "  Slavery  " 64 

The  President  and  Congress  on  publications  of  the  abolitionists  67 

Change  in  Southern  sentiment  regarding  slavery 68 

John  Quincy  Adams 69 

Webster's  description  of  Northern  sentiment  on  slavery 72 

Growth  of  abolition  sentiments 73 

Character  of  the  abolitionists 75 

^/Texas  question 75 

Webster  on  Texas  annexation 77 

President  Tyler  and  Texas  annexation 78 

Calhoun  and  Texas 80 

Clay  and  Polk 83 

Annexation  of  Texas  by  joint  resolution 85 

The  Oregon  question 86 

\  #The  Mexican  War ; 87 

The  Wilmot  Proviso..  90 


CONTENTS  V 

t* Peace  with  Mexico,  and  acquisition  of  New  Mexico  and  Cali- 
fornia    93 

The  Calhoun  theory 94 

^ The  question  of  slavery  in  the  territories 95 

CHAPTER    II 

Zachary  Taylor 99 

"  To  the  Victors  belong  the  Spoils  " 101 

Fillmore  and  Seward 101 

Taylor's  ideas  of  the  civil  service 102 

Nathaniel  Hawthorne 103 

John   C.  Calhoun 104 

Southern   sentiment 105 

Northern   sentiment 107 

President  Taylor's  position 109 

California Ill 

Calif ornians  form  a  State  government  and  prohibit  slavery. . .    115 
Public  sentiment  on  the  assembling  of  Congress,  December, 

1849 116 

Cobb  of  Georgia  elected  speaker 117 

The  President's  message 119 

The  Senate  of  1849-50 119 

Henry  Clay 120 

Clay's  plan  of  Compromise 122 

Clay's   speech 123 

The  rendition  of  fugitive  slaves  discussed 125 

Calhoun's   speech 127 

Was  the  Union  in  danger  in  1850  ? 131 

General  Taylor 133 

The  real  danger  to  the  Union  discussed 135 

Daniel  Webster 137 

Webster's  7th-of-March  speech 144 

The  7th-of-March  speech  discussed 149 

Reception  by  the  country  of  the  7th-of -March  speech 154 

The  altered  verdict  on  the  character  of  Webster  discussed.. . .   157 

Webster  and  Burke  compared 160 

William  H.  Seward..  ,    162 


vi  CONTENTS 

Seward's  speech. 163 

SewarcTs  speech  discussed 165 

The  debate  on  the  Compromise  Measures 168 

Benton  and  Foote 169 

The  Committee  of  Thirteen 171 

The  Nashville  convention 173 

The  position  of  the  administration 175 

Illness  and  death  of  President  Taylor. 175 

Millard  Fillmore 178 

State  government  formed  in  New  Mexico 180 

The  Compromise  Measures , 181 

The  Compromise  completed 183 

The  Fugitive  Slave  law 185 

The  reason  of  its  enactment 187 

Fillmore  and  the  Fugitive  Slave  law 188 

The  Compromise  discussed 189 

Clay  and  Webster 190 

Seward  and  Chase 192 

Northern  sentiment -. 194 

Southern  sentiment 196 

Northern  sentiment  on  the  Fugitive  Slave  law 196 

CHAPTER    III 

The  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty 199 

The  Galphin  Claim 202 

The  Hulsemann  letter 205 

The  finality  of  the  Compromise „ 207 

The  Fugitive  Slave  law 207 

The  rescue  of  Shadrach 209 

The  rendition  of  Sims 211 

Proclamation  by  vigilance  committee 212 

Faneuil  Hall  refused  for  a  reception  to  Webster 218 

Allen's  attack  on  Webster 213 

Reduction  of  rates  of  postage 215 

The  Lopez  expedition  to  Cuba 216 

Riot  in  New  Orleans 220 

The  working  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  law .  229 


CONTENTS  vii 

The  "  Jerry  Rescue  " 224 

Southern  sentiment 226 

Charles  Sumner 227 

Benjamin  F.  Wade 228 

The  Thirty-second  Congress 229 

Kossuth 231 

The  finality  of  the  Compromise 243 

The  Democratic  national  convention  of  1852 244 

Lewis  Cass 244 

Stephen  A.  Douglas 244 

James  Buchanan 246 

Marcy 246 

Proceedings  of  the  convention 247 

Nomination  of  Pierce 248 

Character  of  Pierce 249 

The  Whig  national  convention  of  1852 252 

Speech  of  Rufus  Choate 254 

Nomination  of  Scott 256 

Why  Webster  was  not  nominated 257 

Character  of  Scott 259 

Disappointment  of  Webster 260 

Death  of  Clay 261 

Disaffection  to  Scott 262 

Democratic  enthusiasm  for  Pierce 264 

Sumner  and  the  Fugitive  Slave  law 265 

The  Presidential  campaign  of  1852 269 

Tour  of  Scott  through  the  country 274 

Election  of  Pierce 277 

"  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin  " 278 

Death  of  Webster 285 

Theodore  Parker 288 

Edward  Everett 291 

Everett's  letter  on  the  Cuban  question 294 

Fillmore 296 

Thomas   Corwin , .  298 

Fillmore's  administration . .  .  301 


viii  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  IV 

Slavery 303 

Frederic  Law  Olmsted 303 

Cost  of  keeping  slaves 305 

Overseers 307 

Negro  regarded  merely  as  property 308 

Women  under  slavery 310 

Cotton  and  slavery 311 

The  value  of  slaves 314 

The  breeding  of  slaves  for  market 315 

Slaves  were  chattels 318 

Slave  auction 319 

The  domestic  slave-trade 323 

The  flogging  of  slaves 325 

Legislation  forbidding  the  education  of  slaves 327 

Religious  teaching 329 

Intellectual  and  moral  condition  of  the  slaves 333 

The  house   servants 334 

Amalgamation 335 

Morals  of  slavery 336 

The  mulattoes 339 

Effect  of  slavery  on  white  children 343 

The  poor  whites 344 

The  Southern  oligarchy 345 

The  Southern  aristocracy 347 

Lack  of  comfort  among  the  mass  of  slave-holders 349 

Lack  of  schools 350 

Criticism  of  Northern  school-books 350 

Criticism  of  Northern  literature 352 

Material  prosperity  of  the  North  and  the  South 354 

Differences  between  the  North  and  the  South 356 

The  virtues  of  the  Southern  aristocracy 359 

The  disadvantages  of  Southern  society 361 

"  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin  " 363 

Southern  defence  of  slavery 365 

European  opinions 373 


CONTENTS  ix 

Southern  description  of  slavery 374 

Denial  of  free  speech  at  the  South 375 

Fear  of  slave  risings 376 

Fugitive  slaves 378 

The  judgment  of  history  on  the  Southern  men 379 

Jefferson,  Calhoun,  and  Jefferson  Davis 379 

Reflections 380 

CHAPTER    V 

Inauguration  of  Franklin  Pierce 384 

Formation  of  the  cabinet 387 

Jefferson  Davis 388 

Caleb  Cushing 390 

Buchanan 393 

Soule 394 

Hawthorne 396 

Office-seeking 399 

The  yellow  fever  at  New  Orleans 400 

The  Crystal  Palace  Exhibition 4l4 

The  case  of  Martin  Koszta 416 

Standing  of  Pierce  at  the  close  of  1853 419 

The  Thirty-third  Congress 421 

Stephen  A.  Douglas 424 

Douglas's  report  on  Nebraska  Territory 425 

Political  repose,  January  1st,  1854,  disturbed  by  Douglas 428 

The  amendment  of  Dixon 433 

Interview  of  Douglas  with  Dixon 434 

Douglas  consults  the  President 437 

The  Kansas-Nebraska  bill 439 

The  Appeal  of  the  Independent  Democrats 441 

Douglas's  speech 444 

Chase's  speech 448 

Wade's  retort  to  Badger 452 

Seward's  speech 453 

Sumner's  speech 454 

Everett's  speech 455 

Cass's  position 458 


x  CONTENTS 

Differing  constructions  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill 459 

Douglas's  parliamentary  management 461 

Chase,  the  leader  of  the  opposition 462 

Public  sentiment  as  seen  in  the  press 463 

Public  sentiment  as  seen  in  public  meetings 465 

Public  sentiment  as  seen  by  action  of  State  legislatures 467 

Petitions  against  the  Kansas-Nebraska  act 468 

Southern  sentiment 468 

Douglas's  closing  speech 470 

The  vote  on  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill 475 

"Popular  Sovereignty" 477 

The  petition  of  the  clergymen 477 

The  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  in  the  House 480 

The  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  passed 489 

The  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  discussed 490 

Power  and  influence  of  Douglas 491 

Character  of  Douglas 492 

Northern  sentiment 494 

Southern  sentiment 496 

The  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  and  the  Fugitive  Slave  law 498 

The  Burns  case . .  .500 


CHAPTER  VI 

Diplomatic  costume 507 

The  Gadsden  treaty 513 

The  Reciprocity  treaty  with  Canada 514 

Bombardment  of  San  Juan 515 

The  desire  to  obtain  Cuba 516 

Soule*'s  position  at  Madrid 517 

Soul's  difficulty 518 

Duel  with  Turgot 519 

The  Black  Warrivr  affair 522 

Soule*'s  ultimatum 525 

Calderon's  reply 526 

War  between  the  United  States  and  Spain  considered  probable  . .  528 
Public  sentiment  in  the  United  States .  529 


CONTENTS  xi 

Filibusters  at  work 533 

War  with  Spain  imminent 534 

War  with  Spain  avoided 537 

Marcy  still  hoping  to  acquire  Cuba : 540 

Marcy  and  Soule" • 541 

The  Ostend  manifesto 544 

Soule*  resigns  the  Spanish  mission 548 

The  Ostend  manifesto 548 


HISTORY   OF   THE   UNITED   STATES 

FROM   THE  COMPROMISE  OF  1850 

| 

VOL.   I 


HISTORY  OF 
THE   UNITED    STATES 


CHAPTER  I 

MY  design  is  to  write  the  history  of  the  United  States 
from  the  introduction  of  the  compromise  measures  of  1850 
down  to  the  final  restoration  of  home  rule  in  the  South 
twenty-seven  years  later.     This  period,  less  than  a  genera- 
tion, was  an  era  big  with  fate  for  our  country,  and  for 
the   American  must  remain  fraught  with  the  same  inter- 
est that  the  war  of  the  Peloponnesus  had  for  the  ancient 
Greek,  or  the  struggle  between  the  Cavalier  and  the  Puri- 
tan has  for  their  descendants.    It  ranks  next  in  importance 
to  the  formative  period — to  the  declaration  and  conquest 
of  independence  and  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution ;  and 
Lincoln  and  his  age  are  as  closely  identified  with  the  pre§er- 
vation  of  the  Union  as  Washington  and  the  events  which  he 
more  than  any  other  man  controlled  are  associated  with  the 
establishment  of  the  nation.    The  civil  war,  described  by 
the  great  German  historian  whose  genius  has  illuminated 
the  history  of  Rome  as  "  the  mightiest  struggle  and  most 
glorious  victory  as  yet  recorded  in  human  annals," l  is  one  of 


1  History  of  Rome,  Mommsen,  yol.  iv.  p.  558. 

L-i 


2  INTRODUCTION  [Ca  f. 

those  gigantic  events  whose  causes,  action,  and  sequences 
will  be  of  perennial  concern  to  him  who  seeks  the  wisdom 
underlying  the  march  of  history.  While  we  now  clearl} 
see  that  the  conflict  between  two  opposing  principles  caus 
ing  the  struggle  that  led  to  the  Missouri  Compromise,  an^ 
renewed  from  time  to  time  after  that  settlement,  was  del 
tined  to  result  in  the  overthrow  of  one  or  the  other,  yet  it 
was  not  until  the  eleven  years  preceding  the  appeal  to  arms 
that  the  question  of  negro  slavery  engrossed  the  whole  at- 
tention of  the  country.  It  then  became  the  absorbing  con- 
troversy in  Congress,  and  dominated  all  political  contests ; 
the  issue  came  home  to  every  thinking  citizen,  and  grew  to 
be  the  paramount  political  topic  discussed  in  the  city  mart, 
the  village  store,  and  the  artisan's  workshop.  It  was  less 
than  three  years  before  the  secession  of  South  Carolina  that 
Seward  described  our  condition  as  "an  irrepressible  con- 
flict," and  Lincoln  likened  it  to  a  house  divided  against 
-  itself  that  could  not  stand.  It  is  not  difficult  to  trace  the 
different  manifestations  of  the  opposing  principles  in  these 
years.  The  signs  of  the  times  are  so  plain  that  he  who  runs 
may  read  them. 

It  will  be  my  aim  to  recount  the  causes  of  the  triumph 
of  the  ^Republican  party  in  the  presidential  election  of  1860, 
and  to  make  clear  how  the  revolution  in  public  opinion  was 
brought  about  that  led  to  this  result.  Under  a  consti- 
tutional government,  the  history  of  political  parties  is  the 
civil  history  of  the  country.  I  shall  have  to  relate  the  down- 
fall of  the  Whig  party,  the  formation  of  the  Kepublican, 
and  the  disruption  of  the  Democratic  party,  that,  with  brief 
intermissions,  had  conducted  the  affairs  of  the  government 
from  the  election  of  Jefferson,  its  founder  and  first  Presi- 
dent. A  significant  incident  of  this  defeat  was  that  Lincoln, 
the  elected  President,  received  not  a  single  vote  in  ten  South- 
ern States,  owing  his  success  entirely  to  the  North.  These 
ten  States  and  one  more,  Virginia,1  would  not  submit  to  a 
sectional  President  and  seceded  from  the  Union.  Then  en- 


1  Lincoln  received  1929  votes  in  Virginia. 


CH.  I]  NEGRO  SLAVES  BROUGHT  TO  VIRGINIA  3 

sued  the  civil  war,  the  central  event  of  niy  history.  From 
1850  to  1861  the  antecedents  of  this  terrible  conflict  engross 
the  attention  of  every  student  of  the  period ;  after  1865,  the 
consequences.  The  withdrawal  of  the  United  States  troops 
from  South  Carolina  and  Louisiana  by  President  Hayes  in 
1877,  constituting  the  final  restoration  of  home  rule  to  the 
South,  is  a  fitting  episode  with  which  to  close  this  narrative. 
For  then,  the  Southern  question  gave  way  to  other  political 
issues. 

The  compromise  measures  of  1850  were  a  compromise 
with  slavery  and  the  last  of  those  settlements  that  well- 
meaning  and  patriotic  men  from  both  sides  of  Mason  and 
Dixon's  line  were  wont  to  devise  when  the  slavery  ques- 
tion made  unwelcome  intrusion.  To  know  the  reason  of 
these  enactments  and  to  understand  their  scope  and  pur- 
pose, a  retrospect  is  necessary  of  so  much  of  the  his- 
tory of  our  country  as  relates  to  the  slavery  question  in 
politics. 

Negro  slaves,  as  is  generally  known,  were  brought  to  Vir- 
ginia in  the  infancy  of  the  colony.  Fifty  years  after  the 
landing  of  the  first  cargo  at  Jamestown,  the  blacks  were 
only  five  per  cent  of  the  population.1  But  America  had  large 
new  tracts  of  land  and  few  agricultural  settlers ;  and  these 
economical  conditions  and  the  moral  attitude  of  Christendom 
being  given,  slavery  was  in  the  natural  course  of  things  cer- 
tain to  be  extended.2  At  first  the  rigor  of  the  law  was  aimed 
at  the  restraint  of  intermarriage  and  of  illicit  intercourse 
between  the  races :  public  whipping,  and  admonition  in  the 
church,  were  visited  upon  the  guilty  white  man.3  But  tow- 
ards the  last  quarter  of  the  seventeenth  century,  the  laws 


1  Governor  Berkeley's  report,  Hart's  American  History  told  by  Contempo- 
raries, vol.  i.  p.  239. 

2  Economic  History  of  Virginia,  Bruce,  vol.  ii.  p.  57. 

8  Short  History  of  English  Colonies,  Lodge,  p.  67 ;  History  of  United 
States,  Hildreth,  vol.  i.  p.  521 ;  vol.  ii.  pp.  178,  429  ;  Hening,  The  Statutes  at 
Large.  Being  a  Collection  of  the  Laws  of  Virginia  from  1619-1792.  Vol.  i. 
pp.  146,  552  ;  vol.  ii.  p.  170 ;  Bruce,  vol.  ii.  pp.  57-130. 


4  SLAVERY  IN  SOUTH  CAROLINA  [Ca.  I 

of  the  colonies  began  to  be  stringent,  foreshadowing  in 
their  severity  the  inhuman  slave  codes  of  the  Southern 
States  under  the  Union  ;  yet  while  the  Virginia  slave  legis 
lation  was  ferocious,  the  custom  was  more  lenient  than  the 
law.1  In  South  Carolina,  however,  the  advantage  of  negro 
labor  might  be  seen  at  its  best,  for  it  had  a  climate  better 
auited  to  the  African  than  the  northern  colonies,  and  it  was, 
moreover,  essentially  a  planting  state.  The  rice  plant  had 
at  an  early  period  been  introduced  from  Madagascar,  and 
the  rice  of  Carolina  was  soon  esteemed  the  best  in  the 
world.  The  cultivation  of  rice  and  indigo  was  unhealthy 
but  highly  remunerative  labor,  and  it  became  the  great  ob- 
ject of  the  emigrant  "  to  buy  negro  slaves,  without  which," 
the  Secretary  to  the  proprietors  of  Carolina  wrote,  "a 
planter  can  never  do  any  great  matter."8  In  less  than  a 
century  after  the  settlement  of  South  Carolina,  capital  in- 
vested in  planting  could  easily  be  doubled  in  three  or  four 
years.  The  mechanic  left  his  trade  and  the  merchant  his 
business  to  devote  themselves  to  agriculture.*  Slaves  could 
be  bought  for  about  forty  pounds  each,  and  as  they  pro- 
duced in  twelve  months  more  than  enough  rice  and  indigo 
to  pay  their  entire  cost,  they  were  a  profitable  investment, 
and  the  temptation  was  great  to  work  them  beyond  their 
physical  endurance.  The  planters  lived  in  fear  of  a  rising 
and  massacre,  and  the  legislation  regarding  the  slaves  was 
harsh  and  cruel.  The  degradation  of  the  negroes  was  great ; 
dispensing  for  the  most  part  with  the  ceremony  of  marriage, 
their  sexual  relations  were  loose  and  irregular.4 

In  the  neighboring  colony  of  Georgia,  the  last  of  the  thir- 


1  Lodge,  p.  69. 

1  An  Account  of  the  Province  of  Carolina,  London,  1682,  cited  from 
the  Historical  Collections  of  South  Carolina,  by  B.  R.  Carroll,  vol.  ii. 
p.  33. 

•  Bancroft,  vol.  ii.  p.  392.    The  edition  used  is  that  of  Appleton  &  Co., 
1887,  having  the  author's  last  revision.     South  Carolina  was  settled  in 
1670. 

*  Lodge,  p.  182. 


CH.  L]  SLAVERY  IN  GEORGIA  5 

teen  to  be  settled,  the  introduction  of  slaves  was  prohibited. 
Oglethorpe,  the  founder  of  the  colony,  said :  "  Slavery  is 
against  the  Gospel  as  well  as  the  fundamental  law  of  Eng- 
land. We  refused,  as  trustees,  to  make  a  law  permitting 
such  a  horrid  crime." J  But  the  promised  lucrative  returns 
from  negro  labor  were  more  powerful  than  respect  for  the 
law,  and  the  Georgia  planters  began  to  hire  slaves  from 
Carolina.  It  was  not  long  before  slaves  direct  from  Africa 
were  landed  at  Savannah,  while  the  laws  against  their  in- 
troduction ceased  to  be  observed.  "Whitefield,  believing 
slavery  an  ordinance  of  God,  designed  for  the  eventual  good 
of  the  African,  and  also  having  an  eye  to  its  present  advan- 
tage to  the  colonist,  argued  earnestly  for  the  introduction  of 
slaves  into  Georgia;'  and  his  practice  conformed  to  his  doc- 
trine, for  he  bought  a  plantation  on  which,  at  the  time  of  his 
death,  there  were  seventy-five  slaves ;  these  he  bequeathed 
to  a  lady  whom  he  called  one  of  the  "  elect." '  The  Meth- 
odist evangelist  acted  in  consistency  with  the  age,  and  so 
did  his  contemporary,  Jonathan  Edwards,  the  exponent  of 
Calvinism  in  New  England,  who  left,  among  other  property, 
a  negro  boy.  Nor  did  the  pure  life  and  liberal  opinions  of 
Bishop  Berkeley  lead  him  to  a  position  on  slavery  in  advance 


1  Bancroft,  vol.  ii.  p.  287.  "  Ibid.,  p.  299. 

9  Life  and  Times  of  John  "Wesley,  Tyerman.  In  this  work  a  curious 
letter  from  Whitefield  in  1751  is  printed,  from  which  I  make  the  fol- 
lowing extracts :  "  As  for  the  lawfulness  of  keeping  slaves  I  have  no 
doubt.  It  is  plain  hot  countries  cannot  be  cultivated  without  negroes. 
What  a  flourishing  country  Georgia  might  have  been,  had  the  use  of 
them  been  permitted  years  ago.  .  .  .  Though  it  is  true  they  are  brought 
in  a  wrong  way  from  their  own  country,  and  it  is  a  trade  not  to  be  ap- 
proved of,  yet  as  it  will  be  carried  on  whether  we  will  or  not,  I  should 
think  myself  highly  favored  if  I  could  purchase  a  good  number  of  them 
in  order  to  make  their  lives  comfortable,  and  lay  a  foundation  for  breed- 
ing up  their  posterity  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord.  I  had 
no  hand  in  bringing  them  into  Georgia,  though  my  judgment  was  for  it. 
...  It  rejoiced  my  soul  to  hear  that  one  of  my  poor  negroes  in  Carolina 
was  made  a  brother  in  Christ." 


6  SLAVERY  AT   THE  NORTH  [On.  L 

of  his  time.  He  conformed  to  the  practice  of  the  best  peo- 
ple and  held  slaves.1 

Farther  northward,  slavery  appeared  stripped  of  some  of 
its  evils.  The  treatment  of  the  negroes  was  more  humane, 
and  legislation  secured  them  a  greater  degree  of  personal 
protection.  In  the  colonies  that  afterwards  became  the 
Middle  States  they  were  rarely  worked  as  field  hands,  and 
though  sometimes  employed  in  the  iron  furnaces  and  forges 
of  Pennsylvania,8  their  chief  use  was  as  domestic  servants. 
In  New  York  it  was  deemed  a  mitigation  of  punishment 
that  refractory  slaves,  instead  of  being  whipped,  were  sold 
for  the  West  Indian  market.  In  New  England  slavery  was 
not  a  prominent  feature  except  in  Rhode  Island,  where  New- 
port was  largely  engaged  in  the  slave-trade ;  and  at  the  out- 
break of  the  Revolution,  when  one  in  fifty  of  the  popula- 
tion of  New  England  were  slaves,  the  general  tendency  of 
public  opinion  was  against  the  institution.  The  laws  in 
regard  to  the  slaves  were  mild,  and  limited  their  punish- 
ment;  they  were  invariably  employed  as  house-servants, 
and  were  taught  to  read  the  Bible.3 

In  the  colonies  where  moral  feeling  was  not  stifled  by 
golden  returns  from  the  culture  of  rice  and  tobacco  by 
slave  labor,  and  where  slaves  were  rather  a  domestic  conven- 
ience than  a  planter's  necessity,  the  notion  that  the  practice 
was  an  evil  began  to  make  itself  manifest.  The  legislators 
of  the  Providence  Colony,  in  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth 
century,  enacted  that  no  negro  should  be  held  to  perpetual 
service,  but  that  all  slaves  should  be  set  free  at  the  end  of 
ten  years;  yet  the  law  was  not  enforced,  for  it  was  far  in 
advance  of  public  sentiment.4  William  Penn  made  earnest 
though  unavailing  efforts  to  improve  the  mental  and  moral 
condition  of  the  negroes  and  to  secure  a  decent  respect  for 


1  History  of  England  in  the  Eighteenth  Century,  Lecky,  vol.  ii.  p.  17. 

*  Iron  in  all  Ages,  Swank,  p.  143. 

*  Lodge,  p.  442 ;  Hildreth,  vol.  ii.  p.  419. 

*  Bancroft,  vol.  i.  p.  293. 


CH.  I]  ENGLISH  OPINION  OF  SLAVERY  7 

their  family  relations ;  in  his  last  will  he  directed  that  his 
own  slaves  should  be  given  their  freedom.  In  1688  a  so- 
ciety of  German  Friends,  who  had  left  the  country  of  the 
Rhine  to  enjoy  the  freedom  of  their  religion  under  the 
Quaker  law-giver,  passed  a  solemn  resolution  declaring 
that  it  was  not  lawful  for  Christians  to  buy  or  hold  negro 
slaves.1 

Yet  these  did  little  to  stem  the  current  of  opinion  which, 
sustained  by  official  and  royal  favor,  rated  the  negro 
simply  at  his  money-value  as  merchandise.  William  III., 
though  establishing  religious  liberty  and  a  constitutional 
government  in  England,  was  not  in  advance  of  his  age  in 
his  views  of  the  slave-trade.  One  of  the  early  royal  instruc- 
tions issued  in  the  name  of  William  and  Mary  enjoined  the 
colonial  governors  to  keep  open  the  market  for  salable  ne- 
groes, and  in  the  same  reign  an  act  of  Parliament  declared 
that  "  the  trade  is  highly  beneficial  and  advantageous  to  the 
kingdom  and  colonies." 2  Before  and  during  the  war  of  the 
Spanish  Succession,  with  which  the  eighteenth  century  be- 
gins, the  English  government  did  its  best  for  the  protection 
of  the  negro  traffic ;  it  issued  mandates  to  the  Governor  of 
New  York  and  other  governors  to  provide  "  a  constant  and 
sufficient  supply  of  merchantable  negroes." 8  Of  the  utmost 
significance  was  the  treaty  of  Utrecht  (1713),  made  at  the 
close  of  this  war.  By  compact  with  Spain,  it  provided  that 
England  should  have  the  monopoly  of  supplying  negro  slaves 
to  the  Spanish- American  provinces.  The  company  formed 
to  carry  out  the  contract  promised  such  enormous  profits 
that  Queen  Anne  reserved  for  herself  one-quarter  of  the 
common  stock ;  and  it  is  noteworthy  that  almost  the  only 
feature  of  the  treaty  that  gave  general  satisfaction  in  Eng- 
land was  the  article  that  encouraged  the  "kidnapping  of 
tens  of  thousands  of  negroes,  and  their  consignment  to  the 
most  miserable  slavery." 4  But  all  of  the  best  minds  of  Eng- 


1  Bancroft,  vol.  i.  p.  572.  a  Ibid.,  vol.  ii.  pp.  77,  278. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  209.  *  Lecky's  England,  vol.  i.  p.  138. 


8  ATTITUDE  OF  VIRGINIA  [Cn.  I 

land  were  not  of  this  way  of  thinking.  Baxter,  the  Chris- 
tian patriot,  had  in  the  previous  century  reminded  the  slave- 
holder that  the  slave  "  was  of  as  good  a  kind  as  himself, 
born  to  as  much  liberty,  by  nature  his  equal;"  and  it  is  a 
grateful  remembrance  to  lovers  of  English  literature  that 
Addison  and  Steele  protested  against  the  inhumanity  of 
holding  in  bondage  the  African.1 

Virginia  for  many  years  took  a  creditable  attitude  tow- 
ards the  question  of  slavery,  although  it  is  probable  that 
before  the  ^Revolution  negro  labor  was  for  her  an  instru- 
ment of  wealth.  By  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century 
a  large  number  in  this  colony  favored  the  prohibition  of  the 
slave-trade;8  and  this  opinion,  which  with  some  undoubt- 
edly had  a  moral  prompting,  was  fostered  by  alarm  at  the 
growing  number  of  blacks,  excited  especially  during  the 
French  and  Indian  War.  "  The  negro  slaves  have  been  very 
audacious  on  the  news  of  the  defeat  on  the  Ohio,"  wrote 
Governor  Dinwiddie  to  the  home  administration  after  Brad- 
dock's  defeat  in  1755.  "These  poor  creatures  imagine  the 
French  will  give  them  their  freedom.  We  have  too  many 
here."3  Six  years  later  the  Virginia  Assembly  imposed  a 
high  duty  on  imported  slaves,  which  it  was  hoped  would  be 
prohibitory,  but  this  act  was  vetoed  by  England ;  *  and  in 
1770  King  George  III.  instructed  the  Governor  of  Virginia, 
"  upon  the  pain  of  the  highest  displeasure,  to  assent  to  no 
law  by  which  the  importation  of  slaves  should  be  in  any 
respect  prohibited  or  obstructed."6  At  this  time  Virginia, 
Maryland,  and  the  Northern  colonies  favored  strongly  put- 
ting a  stop  to  the  foreign  slave-trade ;  and  this  feeling  showed 
itself  in  Virginia  by  a  strong  and  respectful  remonstrance 
against  the  royal  instructions,  in  which  she  had  the  sympa- 


1  Bancroft,  vol.  ii.  p.  277. 

1  Ibid.,  vol.  ii.  p.  394. 

s  Montcalm  and  Wolfe,  Parkman,  vol.  i.  p.  229. 

4  Bancroft,  vol.  ii.  p.  550;  see  Hildreth,  vol.  ii.  p.  494. 

•  Bancroft,  voL  iii.  p.  410;  Order  in  council  of  Dec.  9th,  1770. 


CH.  I]  LORD  MANSFIELD'S  DECISION  9 

thy  of  almost  all  of  her  sister  colonies.1  But  while  the  peo- 
ple of  the  Old  Dominion  were  willing  to  prohibit  the  traffic 
in  human  beings  from  Africa,  to  give  their  own  negroes  free- 
dom was  a  different  matter,  and,  while  assenting  without 
dispute  to  the  doctrine  that  slavery  in  the  abstract  was 
wrong,  they  held  that  any  question  of  its  abolition  should 
be  postponed  to  a  more  convenient  season.  By  no  one  is 
this  contradiction  between  speculation  and  practice  more 
frankly  and  clearly  stated  than  by  Patrick  Henry  in  the 
oft-quoted  letter  written  two  years  before  his  memorable 
oration.8 

When  the  question  of  freedom  and  slavery  was  at  issue, 
the  English  judiciary  had  early  been  on  the  side  of  freedom. 
Chief  Justice  Holt  had,  in  1697,  affirmed  that  "  as  soon  as  a 
negro  comes  into  England  he  is  free ;"  and,  in  1702,  that  "in 
England  there  is  no  such  thing  as  a  slave."3  But  public 
sentiment  lagged  behind  the  law,  and  later  received  the  seal 
of  an  extra-judicial  opinion,  which  in  practice  permitted 
American  planters  to  bring  their  negroes  to  England  and 
hold  them  there  as  slaves.4  The  Sommersett  case,  in  which 
the  question  of  such  a  right  was  involved,  came  before  the 
Court  of  King's  Bench  in  1772,  and  Lord  Mansfield  delivered 
the  opinion.  He  declared  that  slavery  was  of  such  a  nature 
that  it  could  only  be  presumed  to  exist  in  a  country  where  it 
took  its  rise  from  positive  law,  and  consequently  it  was  a 
state  contrary  to  law  in  England.6  This  decision,  crystal- 


1  Bancroft,  vol.  iii.  p.  410 ;  Calendar  of  Home  Office  Papers,  1770-1772, 
p.  600. 

1  See  Bancroft,  vol.  iii.  p.  412 ;  Life  of  Henry  Clay,  Schurz,  vol.  i.  p. 
29 ;  Hildreth,  vol.  iii.  p.  393. 

*  Holt's  Reports,  495 ;  Campbell's  Lives  of  the  Chief  Justices,  vol.  ii 
pp.  138, 139 ;  see  also  Hildreth,  vol.  ii.  pp.  125,  214. 

4  Hildreth,  vol.  ii.  p.  426. 

*  Constitutional  History  of  England,  May,  vol.  ii.  p.  273.     He  remarks : 
"  It  was  a  righteous  judgment ;  but  scarcely  worthy  of  the  extravagant 
commendation  bestowed  upon  it  at  that  time  and  since.    This  boasted 
law,  as  declared  by  Lord  Mansfield,  was  already  recognized  in  France, 


10  JEFFERSON  AND  WASHINGTON  [On.  I. 

lizing  a  sentiment  of  humanity,  was  destined  always  to  re- 
main an  honor  to  the  great  judge  and  his  country's  juris- 
prudence. It  was  a  decision  of  prime  importance  to  the 
English-speaking  communities,  who  are  more  influenced  by 
the  dicta  of  high  courts  than  by  the  assertion,  however 
eloquent,  of  general  ideas  of  abstract  justice.  There  had 
been  incomplete  and  unenforced  legislation  favoring  the 
slave  and  judicial  decisions  unrespected,  but  no  authority  of 
such  weight  as  Chief  Justice  Mansfield  and  his  court  had 
pronounced  in  terms  which  could  not  be  misunderstood  that 
henceforward,  in  one  country  governed  by  English  law,  free- 
dom should  be  the  invariable  rule. 

While  Whitefield  was  conducting  his  Georgia  plantation 
in  the  fashion  of  the  time,  John  Wesley,  having  pondered 
deeply  on  the  cruelty  of  slavery  as  he  had  seen  it  in  Amer- 
ica, characterized  the  slave-trade  as  "  that  execrable  sum  of 
all  villainies ;"  and  in  his  "  Thoughts  on  Slavery  "denounced 
the  practice  in  unmeasured  terms.  At  the  same  time,  Jef- 
ferson, holding  opinions  that  would  have  made  him  an  abo- 
litionist had  he  lived  in  1860,  gave  expression  to  them  in  his 
draft  of  instructions  for  Virginia's  delegates  to  the  first  Con- 
gress of  the  Colonies,  which  was  called  to  meet  at  Philadel- 
phia in  1774.  The  abolition  of  slavery,  he  wrote,  is  the  great 
object  of  desire  in  the  colonies.  "  But  previous  to  the  en- 
franchisement of  the  slaves  we  have,  it  is  necessary  to  exclude 
any  further  importations  from  Africa."  To  that  end  the 
repeated  endeavors  of  Virginia  had  been  directed  ;  but  every 
such  law  had  been  vetoed  by  the  king  himself,  who  thus  pre- 
ferred the  advantage  of  "  a  few  British  corsairs  to  the  lasting 
interest  of  the  American  States  and  to  the  rights  of  human 
nature,  deeply  wounded  by  this  infamous  practice." l  Wash- 
ington shared  the  ideas  of  Jefferson.  He  presided  at  the 
Fairfax  County  Convention,  and  took  part  in  framing  the 


Holland,  and  some  other  European  countries;  and  as  yet  England  had 

shown  no  symptoms  of  compassion  for  the  negro  beyond  her  own  shores." 

1  Life  of  Jefferson,  Parton,  p.  138;  Jefferson's  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  135. 


CH.  I.]          FRANKLIN— DECLARATION  OF   INDEPENDENCE  1 1 

resolves  then  adopted,  one  of  which  declared  "  that  no  slaves 
ought  to  be  imported  into  any  of  the  British  colonies,"  and 
expressed  "  the  most  earnest  wishes  to  see  an  entire  stop 
forever  put  to  such  a  wicked,  cruel,  and  unnatural  trade." 1 
Franklin,  as  wise  as  he  was  humane,  boldly  argued  in  the 
Congress  of  1776  that  "  slaves  rather  weaken  than  strength- 
en the  state ;" 3  and  that  memorable  body  resolved  "  that  no 
slaves  be  imported  into  any  of  the  thirteen  United  Colonies." ' 
The  evil  was  appreciated,  and  the  large  majority  of  delegates 
felt  that  slavery  ought  to  be  restricted.  It  is  estimated  that 
already  there  had  been  brought  into  the  colonies  300,000 
slaves,  and  the  blacks  constituted  one-fifth  of  the  total  pop- 
ulation,4 a  larger  proportion  than  has  obtained  at  any  sub- 
sequent period.8  Yet  these  figures  do  not  measure  the  ex- 
tent of  the  slave-trade.  For  the  century  previous  to  1776 
English  and  colonial  ships  had  carried  to  the  West  Indies  and 
the  English  continental  colonies  nearly  three  million  negroes. 
A  quarter  of  a  million  more  had  been  bought  in  Africa,  had 
died  of  cruel  treatment  during  the  passage,  and  had  been 
thrown  into  the  Atlantic.6 

Burke  boldly  stated  in  the  House  of  Commons  that  the 
refusal  of  America  to  deal  any  more  in  the  inhuman  traffic 
of  negro  slaves  was  one  of  the  causes  of  her  quarrel  with 
Great  Britain.7  In  the  original  draft  of  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  Jefferson  gave  expression  to  the  same  idea. 
One  of  his  articles  of  indictment  against  George  III.  was: 
"He  has  waged  cruel  war  against  human  nature  itself,  vio- 


1  Life  and  Writings  of  Washington,  Sparks,  vol.  ii.  p.  494. 

a  Life  of  Franklin,  Parton,  vol.  ii.  p.  130.       •  Bancroft,  vol.  iv.  p.  338. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  ii.  pp.  274,  390.     See  also  Burke's  Speech  on  Conciliation 
with  America. 

6  This  is  based  on  the  figures  of  1770;  see  Bancroft ;  also  F.  A.  Walk- 
er's article  in  The  Forum  for  July,  1891. 

•  Bancroft,  vol.  ii.  p.  277. 

7  Cited  in  Hodgson's  North  America,  vol.  i.  p.  57.     Burke's  Speech  on 
Conciliation  with  America.    Burke's  Works,  London  edition  of  1815,  vol. 
iii.  pp.  67,  68. 


12  THE  DECLARATION  OF  INDEPENDENCE  [Ca  L 

lating  its  most  sacred  rights  of  life  and  liberty  in  the  per- 
sons of  a  distant  people  who  never  offended  him,  captivating 
and  carrying  them  into  slavery  in  another  hemisphere,  or  to 
incur  miserable  death  in  the  transportation  thither.  .  .  .  De- 
termined to  keep  open  a  market  where  men  should  be  bought 
and  sold,  he  has  prostituted  his  negative  for  suppressing 
every  legislative  attempt  to  prohibit  or  restrain  this  execra- 
ble commerce."  This  passage,  however,  was  struck  out, 
Jefferson  explained,  "  in  compliance  to  South  Carolina  and 
Georgia,  who  had  never  attempted  to  restrain  the  importa- 
tion of  slaves,  and  who,  on  the  contrary,  still  wished  to  con- 
tinue it.  Our  Northern  brethren  also,  I  believe,  felt  a  little 
tender  under  these  censures ;  for  though  their  people  had 
very  few  slaves  themselves,  yet  they  had  been  pretty  con- 
siderable carriers  of  them  to  others." l 

"  "We  hold,"  said  the  Congress  of  1776,  in  the  Declaration 
of  Independence,  "  these  truths  to  be  self-evident :  that  all. 
men  are  created  equal ;  that  they  are  endowed  by  their  Cre- 
ator with  certain  inalienable  rights ;  that  among  these  are 
life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness."  This  clause  cre- 
ated as  much  discussion  during  all  the  years  of  the  slavery 
agitation  as  if  it  had  been  part  of  our  organic  law.  The 
abolitionists,  and  afterwards  the  Kepublicans,  asserted  that 
it  proved  the  solemn  and  deliberate  belief  of  our  [Revolution- 
ary fathers  to  be  that  all  men  were  entitled  to  their  free- 
dom ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  apologists  for  slavery 
maintained  that,  in  the  minds  of  the  illustrious  author  and  his 
colleagues,  the  words  "  all  men  "  certainly  did  not  include  the 
African  race ;  and  a  very  clever  argument  to  this  effect  was 
made  by  Chief  Justice  Taney  in  the  Dred  Scott  decision.* 

The  affirmation  by  slaveholders  of  the  equality  of  man 
is  an  inconsistency  which  cannot  be  denied.8  But  as  Jef- 


1  Jefferson's  Autobiography.    Works,  vol.  i.  p.  19. 

2  Infra,  Chap.  IX. 

3  "  The  grotesque  absurdity  of  slave-owners  signing  a  Declaration  of 
Independence,  which  asserted  the  inalienable  right  of  every  man  to  lib- 
erty and  equality." — Lecky's  England,  vol.  vi.  p.  282. 


CH.I.]  THE  REVOLUTIONARY  WAR  13 

ferson  and  the  Southerners  who  endorsed  his  words  were  in 
speculation  far  in  advance  of  the  social  practice  of  their  time, 
as  they  believed  that  their  prohibition  of  the  slave-trade 
would  so  curtail  slavery  that  it  would  eventually  die  out,  and 
as  they  little  dreamed  of  the  economical  and  political  condi- 
tions that  were  destined  to  fasten  it  upon  the  South,  the  in- 
consistency was  not  so  glaring  as  it  appears  to  posterity.1 

During  the  Revolutionary  War,  the  slavery  question  is 
almost  lost  sight  of  in  the  struggle  for  independent  nation- 
ality. Free  negroes  took  part  in  the  battle  of  Bunker  Hill ; 
and  although  a  little  later  it  was  decided  that  colored  men 
would  not  be  accepted  as  enlisted  soldiers,  Washington  re- 
versed this  decision,  and  they  served  in  the  American  army 
at  every  subsequent  period  of  the  war.2  The  royal  Gov- 
ernor of  Virginia  tried  to  excite  the  slaves  to  revolt  against 
their  masters  by  promising  them  their  freedom,  but  had 
little  success.  Their  Northern  brethren  desired  liberty  more 
ardently,  as,  during  the  victorious  progress  of  Howe's  army 
through  Pennsylvania,  the  slaves  prayed  for  his  success, 
believing  that  he  would  set  them  free.8  A  scheme  for  the 
general  enfranchisement  of  the  slaves,  with  a  view  to  di- 
minish the  aristocratic  spirit  of  the  Virginian  and  Southern 
colonists,  was  the  subject  of  discussion  in  Parliament ;  but 
Burke  reminded  his  Tory  hearers  that  this  was  a  game  two 
could  play  at,  and  the  American  master  might  "  arm  servile 
hands  in  defence  of  freedom." 4  The  great  statesman  spoke 
wisely.  In  Rhode  Island  the  slaves  were  emancipated  by 
law  on  the  condition  of  their  enlistment  in  the  army  for 
the  war,  and  this  project  had  the  full  approval  of  Wash- 
ington.6 At  a  later  day,  the  question  of  arming  the  blacks 


1  See  Justice  Curtis  on  this,  infra,  Chap.  IX.,  and  Lincoln,  Chap.  IX. 

*  Bancroft,  vol.  iv.  pp.  223,  322;  Sparks,  vol.  iii.  p.  218. 
'  Bancroft,  vol.  v.  p.  180. 

*  Burke's  Speech  on  Conciliation  with  America.     Works,  Bonn's  edi- 
tion, vol.  i.  p.  475. 

»  Bancroft,  vol.  v.  p.  219. 


14  VERMONT,  PENNSYLVANIA,  MASSACHUSETTS  [On.  I 

in  Carolina  was  seriously  discussed,  and  the  policy  was 
warmly  recommended  to  Congress  by  Hamilton ;  but  as  a 
matter  of  policy  it  was  disapproved  of  by  Washington. 
He  argued :  "  Should  we  begin  to  form  battalions  of  them, 
I  have  not  the  smallest  doubt"  the  British  would  "follow 
us  in  it,  and  justify  the  measure  upon  our  own  ground.  The 
contest  then  must  be,  who  can  arm  fastest.  And  where 
are  our  arms  ?" 1 

The  year  following  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  Ver- 
mont separated  from  New  York  and  framed  a  State  con- 
stitution, in  which  slavery  was  forbidden  forever;  but  of 
the  original  thirteen  colonies,  Pennsylvania  was  the  first 
to  take  steps  to  abolish  the  system,  the  Assembly  voting 
in  1780  a  scheme  of  gradual  emancipation.2  In  the  same 
year  Massachusetts  adopted  a  new  constitution,  and  in  the 
declaration  of  rights  it  was  asserted :  "  All  men  are  born 
free  and  equal,  and  have  certain  natural,  essential,  and  in- 
alienable rights."  When  the  convention  came  to  discuss 
how  many  of  the  old  laws  should  remain  in  force,  it  was 
seen  that  any  statutes  that  maintained  or  protected  property 
in  negroes  were  inconsistent  with  this  clause;  and  it  was 
therefore  considered  that  its  adoption  abolished  slavery. 
The  common  notion  soon  had  the  seal  of  judicial  approval. 
The  Supreme  Court  had  occasion  to  pass  upon  the  ques- 
tion, and  decided  that  by  virtue  of  this  article  slavery 
ceased  to  exist  in  Massachusetts.  The  colored  inhabitants 
became  citizens,  and  were  allowed  to  vote  if  they  had  the 
requisite  qualifications  of  age,  property,  and  residence.  At 
about  the  same  time  the  Methodists  of  the  United  States, 
in  solemn  and  regular  conference,  resolved  that  "slave- 
keeping  was  hurtful  to  society,  and  contrary  to  the  laws 
of  God,  man,  and  nature." ' 


1  Bancroft,  vol.  v.  p.  370. 

'  Act  of  March  1st,  1780.    Laws  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Pennsyl- 
vania from  Oct.  14th,  1700,  to  April  6th,  1802,  vol.  ii.  p.  246. 
•  Bancroft,  voL  v.  pp.  416-422. 


CH.  I.]  JEFFERSON   ORDINANCE   OF   1784  15 

With  the  end  of  the  war  and  the  ratification  of  the  peace 
with  Great  Britain,  it  became  the  duty  of  Congress  to  es- 
tablish a  government  for  a  large  extent  of  the  ceded  terri- 
tory not  comprised  within  the  boundaries  of  any  of  the 
thirteen  States.  In  178  4,  Jefferson  reported  an  ordinance 
that  provided  for  the  prohibition  of  slavery  after  the  year 
1800  in  all  the  western  country  above  the  parallel  of  31° 
north  latitude.  This  proposed  interdiction  applied  to  what  af- 
terwards became  the  States  of  Alabama,  Mississippi,  Tennes- 
see, and  Kentucky,  as  well  as  to  the  Northwestern  Territory.1 

To  his  sorrow  and  lasting  regret,  this  anti-slavery  clause 
was  lost  by  one  vote.  "  The  voice  of  a  single  individual," 
Jefferson  wrote  two  years  later,  "  would  have  prevented 
this  abominable  crime.  Heaven  will  not  always  be  silent ; 
the  friends  to  the  rights  of  human  nature  will  in  the  end 
prevail." 3  In  truth,  the  friends  of  human  rights  gained  an 
important  victory  in  the  enactment  of  the  Ordinance  of 
1787,  which  was  a  substitute  for  the  Jefferson  Act  of  1784, 
differing  from  it,  however,  in  that  slavery  was  immediately 
prohibited,  and  in  that  it  only  applied  to  the  Northwestern 
Territory,  which  later  became  the  States  of  Ohio,  Indiana, 
Illinois,  Michigan,  Wisconsin,  and  a  part  of  Minnesota. 
Coupled  with  this  stipulation  was  a  clause  providing  for 
the  rendition  of  fugitive  slaves.  The  Ordinance  partook 
of  a  compromise,  and  had  the  votes  of  all  the  members 
present  but  one ;  four  of  the  Southern  States  were  repre- 
sented. Every  one  of  their  delegates  gave  his  voice  for 
the  anti-slavery  article,  and  its  adoption  was  not  considered 
an  anti-slavery  triumph.  In  view  of  all  the  circumstances, 
it  may  be  regarded  as  a  wise  adjustment  of  opposing  in- 
terests, and  its  practically  unanimous  adoption  was  gained 
through  the  operation  on  individual  minds  of  various  and 
even  conflicting  motives. 


1  See  the  plan  in  Jefferson's  handwriting  in  the  State  Department 
archives. 

*  Jefferson's  Works,  vol.  ix.  p.  276 ;  Bancroft,  vol.  vi.  p.  118. 


16  ORDINANCE  OF   1787  [Cn.  L 

In  contriving  the  passage  of  this  Ordinance,  the  friends 
of  freedom  builded  on  a  more  magnificent  scale  than  they 
dreamed.  A  bulwark  against  the  encroachments  of  slavery 
was  needed  for  the  Northwest,  as  Indiana  Territory  (it  then 
included  Illinois)  afterwards  petitioned  many  times  for  the 
suspension  of  the  anti-slavery  article  of  the  Ordinance,  but 
Congress  refused  the  prayer.  It  is  probable  that  had  it 
not  been  for  the  prohibitory  clause,  slavery  would  have 
gained  such  a  foothold  in  Indiana  and  Illinois  that  the  two 
would  have  been  organized  as  slave-holding  States.  The 
tribute  paid  by  Webster  contains  the  truth  of  history,  and 
is  pregnant  with  philosophy.  "We  are  accustomed,"  he 
said,  "  to  praise  the  law-givers  of  antiquity ;  we  help  to 
perpetuate  the  fame  of  Solon  and  Lycurgus;  but  I  doubt 
whether  one  single  law  of  any  law-giver,  ancient  or  modern, 
has  produced  effects  of  more  distinct,  marked,  and  lasting 
character  than  the  Ordinance  of  1787.  ...  It  fixed  for- 
ever the  character  of  the  population  in  the  vast  regions 
northwest  of  the  Ohio,  by  excluding  from  them  involuntary 
servitude.  It  impressed  on  the  soil  itself,  while  yet  a  wil- 
derness, an  incapacity  to  sustain  any  other  than  freemen. 
It  laid  the  interdict  against  personal  servitude,  in  original 
compact,  not  only  deeper  than  all  local  law,  but  deeper 
also  than  all  local  constitutions." l 

Washington,  Hamilton,  Madison,  and  Franklin  did  not 
assist  at  the  Congress  that  enacted  the  Ordinance  of  1787 ; 
they  were  at  the  federal  convention  in  Philadelphia,  en- 
gaged in  framing  the  Constitution,  that  an  eminent  English 
statesman  has  called  "  the  most  wonderful  work  ever  struck 
off  at  a  given  time  by  the  brain  and  purpose  of  man." '  To 


1  First  speech  on  Foot's  resolution,  1880,  Webster's  Works,  vol.  iii. 
p.  263.  On  the  Ordinance  of  1787,  see  Bancroft,  vol.  vi.  p.  287  et  *cq.; 
Benton's  Thirty  Years'  View,  vol.  i.  p.  133;  Hinsdale's  Old  Northwest, 
chaps,  xv.  and  xviii. ;  Dunn's  Indiana,  chaps,  v.  and  vi. ;  Poole's  article, 
North  American  Review,  April,  1876 ;  Evolution  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787, 
Barrett. 

1  Gladstone. 


CH.  I.]  SLAVERY  AND  THE  CONSTITUTION  17 

the  effort  to  form  a  more  perfect  union  of  the  States,  slavery 
was  a  constant  obstacle.  It  was  the  subject  of  two  com- 
promises, although  the  words  "  slave,"  "  slavery,"  and  "slave- 
trade  "  do  not  occur  in  the  Constitution ;  for  an  adroit 
circumlocution  was  employed  to  avoid  offending  dele- 
gates who  objected  to  the  use  of  those  terms.1 

The  first  compromise  referred  to  the  apportionment  for 
representatives  in  Congress.  What  rule  should  be  applied 
to  the  half  million  or  more  of  slaves  in  the  five  Southern 
States?  Were  the  negroes  persons  or  property  ?  The  article 
of  the  Constitution,  proceeding  on  the  theory  that  they  were 
neither  absolutely  the  one  nor  the  other,  but  that  they  par- 
took of  both  of  these  qualities,  provided  that  in  the  appor- 
tionment for  representatives,  and  for  direct  taxation  as  well, 
five  slaves  should  count  as  three  freemen  ;  as  the  expounder 
of  this  compromise  said,  the  slave  was  regarded  "  as  divested 
of  two  fifths  of  the  man."  *  In  the  mention  of  who  shall 
or  shall  not  be  included  in  the  enumeration,  the  provision 
closes  with,  "  and  three  fifths  of  all  other  persons." '  The 
meaning  is  plain,  but  the  word  "  slave"  is  avoided.  This 
proportional  adjustment  was  not  new  ;  it  had  been  adopted 
four  years  previously  by  the  Confederation  as  a  measure  of 
the  direct  contributions  of  the  States. 

The  second  compromise  related  to  the  slave-trade.  Under 
the  Articles  of  Confederation  the  power  to  regulate  this 
traffic  and  all  species  of  commerce  was  left  with  the  States. 
All  the  States  but  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  and 
Georgia  had  interdicted  the  slave-trade.  These  three 
positively  would  not  accept  the  Constitution  if  this  traffic 
was  immediately  and  unconditionally  prohibited.4  At  the 
same  time,  the  Northern  States  desired  that  Congress  should 


1  History  of  the  Constitution,  Curtis,  vol.  ii.  p.  305. 

*  The  Federalist,  No.  54.    Only  New  Jersey  and  Delaware  voted  against 
this  scheme,  but  Massachusetts  and  South  Carolina  were  divided.    Curtis, 
vol.  ii.  p.  164. 

3  Art.  I.,  section  2. 

*  Curtis,  vol.  ii.  p.  301 ;  Bancroft,  vol.  vi.  p.  320. 

I.-2 


18  SLAVERY  AND  THE  CONSTITUTION  [Cn.  I. 

have  power  to  pass  navigation  laws  by  a  simple  majority, 
an  action  which  the  South  contended  ought  to  require  two 
thirds  of  both  branches  of  the  Legislature.     Finally  mutual 
concessions  were  made.      The  North  was  given  what  it  de- 
sired, and  a  provision  was  incorporated  in  the  Constitution  J 
to  the  effect  that  the  slave-trade  should  not  be  prohibited 
until  the  year  1808.     In  due  time,  acts  to  enforce  the  un- 
derstanding that  was   expressed  in  this  article  of   organic 
law  were   passed,  and   the   inhuman  traffic  was  ostensibly 
brought  to  an  end  in  the  year  named  in  the  Constitution. 

The  existence  of  slavery  dictated  the  provision  for  the 
rendition  of  persons  who,  "  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one 
State,"  escape  into  another.  It  was  by  authority  of  this  clause 
that  the  two  Fugitive  Slave  laws  were  enacted.  It  is  unques- 
tionable that  this  stipulation  was  necessary  for  the  adoption 
and  acceptance  of  the  Constitution ; a  and  there  were  two 
precedents  for  it,  one  in  the  New  England  Confederacy  of 
1643,3  and  the  other  in  the  Ordinance  of  1787.  This  clause 
was  the  subject  of  but  little  debate  and  passed  unanimously.4 

A  defence  of  the  work  of  our  constitutional  fathers,  in- 
cluding the  slavery  compromises,  is  hardly  necessary.  Their 
choice  lay  between  achieving  a  union  of  the  States  with 
those  provisions,  and  failing  to  accomplish  any  union  at  all. 
It  is  a  tendency  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  race  to  take  the  ex- 
pedient in  politics  when  the  absolute  right  cannot  be  had, 
and  in  following  it  the  delegates  acted  wisely. 

Yet,  could  our  fathers  have  known  what  was  known  to 
the  abolitionists  of  1833  and  1860,  how  different  the  course 
of  history  would  have  been !  In  1787  it  was  supposed,  and 
with  apparent  reason,  that  slavery  would  die  out  in  all  of 


1  Curtis,  vol.  ii.  p.  303  ;  see  Du  Bois,  pp.  95-130,  151-193. 

1  Curtis,  vol.  ii.  p.  451 ;  Benton's  Thirty  Years'  View,  vol.  ii.  p.  773; 
The  War  between  the  States,  Alex.  Stephens,  vol.  i.  p.  202;  Alex. 
Johnston  went  over  the  ground  thoroughly,  and  came  to  the  same  con- 
clusion, New  Princeton  Review,  vol.  iv.  p.  183. 

8  Bancroft,  vol.  i.  p.  293 ;  Curtis,  vol.  ii.  p.  453. 

4  Elliot's  Debates,  vol.  v.  pp.  487,  492 ;  Curtis,  vol.  ii.  p.  456. 


CH.  I.]  SLAVERY   AND  THE  CONSTITUTION  19 

the  States.  Seven  had  already  abolished  it,  or  were  pre- 
paring to  do  so  ;  and  he  would  not  have  been  called  a  rash 
man  who  predicted  that  he  would  see  in  his  own  lifetime 
Delaware,  Maryland,  and  Virginia  free  States.  Indeed,  in  the 
First  Congress  a  majority  of  the  representatives  from  Mary- 
land and  Virginia  inclined  to  anti-slavery  views  ; l  and  while 
public  sentiment  in  the  three  most  southern  States  lagged 
behind,  a  representative  from  Georgia  stated  in  the  House, 
without  contradiction,  that  not  a  man  lived  in  Georgia  who 
did  not  wish  there  were  no  slaves,  and  that  everybody  be- 
lieved they  were  a  curse  to  the  country.2  But  when  the 
Constitution  was  framed  the  cotton-gin  had  not  been  in- 
vented. Eli  Whitney's  machine  made  possible  the  culture 
of  cotton  on  a  large  scale,  and  created  a  demand  for  negro 
labor  that  could  not  have  been  foreseen.  The  founders  of 
our  government  met  to  devise  a  more  perfect  union,  to  give 
to  a  central  authority  enough  power  to  create  a  nation,  and 
to  make  it  respected  and  respectable  in  the  eyes  of  the  world. 
To  attain  this  supreme  end,  jarring  interests  and  conflicting 
ideas  had  to  be  reconciled,  and  it  was  indeed  unfortunate 
that  slavery  was  one  of  those  interests  to  mar  an  otherwise 
perfect  work. 

The  extraordinary  political  ability  shown  in  that  conven- 
tion has  led  some  European  writers  to  judge  its  members 
by  ethical  standards  higher  than  those  of  the  time ;  in  other 
words,  to  try  the  actors  of  the  eighteenth  century  at  the  bar 
of  the  nineteenth  instead,  and  to  criticise  them,  because, 
having  done  what  they  did,  they  did  not  do  more  and  set 
operations  in  train  whose  result  would  have  been  the  abo- 
lition of  slavery.3  But  this  was  what  the  majority  of  the 
convention  actually  thought  that  they  had  done.  They  be- 
lieved, and  not  without  apparent  reason,  that  if  the  slave- 

1  History  of  the  United  States,  Hildreth,  vol.  iv.  p.  204. 
*  McMaster's  United  States,  vol.  ii.  p.  359. 

3  "  Europeans  have  a  useful  knack  of  forgetting  their  own  shortcomings 
when  contemplating  those   of  their  neighbors." — American  Cominon- 
,  Brvce,  vol.  ii.  p.  121. 


20  SERVITUDE  IN  EUROPE  [Cn.  I 

trade  could  be  prohibited,  the  extinction  of  slavery  would 
soon  follow. 

In  its  attitude  towards  this  moral  question,  the  convention 
was  in  advance  of  the  world,  as  it  confessedly  was  in  pro- 
gressive political  ideas.     No  European  country  had  at  that 
time  abolished  the  African  slave-trade.     Its  maintenance 
was,  as  we  have  seen,  an  object  of  English  commercial  policy. 
Some  of  the  ablest  and  purest  men  in  Parliament  worked 
earnestly  to  put  a  stop  to  it ;  yet,  in  1791,  a  motion  of  Wilber- 
force  for  leave  to  bring  in  a  bill  to  prevent  the  further  im- 
portation of  negroes  into  the  West  Indies,  though  supported 
by  Pitt,  Fox,  and  Burke,  was  defeated  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons by  a  vote  of  nearly  two  to  one. 1    While  ten  of  our 
States  had  prohibited  the  slave-trade  and  seven  were  abol- 
ishing slavery,  serfdom  still  existed  in  parts  of  Germany, 
and  the  vestiges  of  it  in  France  were  abolished  only  by  the 
Revolution.2     In  England  the  condition  of  factory  opera- 
tives and  of  mining  laborers  was  as  revolting  to  the  modern 
humane  feeling  as  the  negro  slavery  of  America.3 

If  we  ask  the  question,  Could  a  better  organic  instrument 
than  our  present  Constitution  be  framed  and  adopted  in  the 
United  States  of  to-day?  we  may  not  refuse  to  answer  that 
it  is  "perhaps  the  most  remarkable  monument  of  political 
wisdom  known  to  history."4  If  "human  progress  rarely 


1  Lecky's  England  in  the  Eighteenth  Century,  vol.  vi.  p.  293. 

2  Lecky's  England,  vol.  v.  p.  317.     Edward  Jackson  Lowell,  Eve  of  the 
French  Revolution,  pp.   194-195;  History  of  Civilization,  Buckle,  vol.  i. 
p.  465. 

*  "  It  was  one  of  the  effects  of  the  immense  development  of  the  cotton 
manufacture,  that  negro  slavery  in  America,  which  at  the  time  of  Wash- 
ington seemed  likely  to  be  extinguished  by  an  easy  and  natural  process, 
at  once  assumed  gigantic  dimensions.  It  was  hardly  more  horrible, 
however,  than  the  white  slavery  which  for  years  after  the  establishment 
of  the  factory  system  prevailed  both  in  England  and  on  the  Continent." — 
Lecky's  England,  vol.  vi.  p.  225. 

«  James  R.  Lowell  in  1888,  Political  Essays,  p.  311.  "  The  framers  of 
the  Constitution"  were  "  wiser  than  Justinian  before  them  or  Napoleon 
after  them."— American  Commonwealth,  Bryce,  vol.  i.  p.  364. 


CH.  I]  WASHINGTON,  HAMILTON,  AND  MADISON  21 

means  more  than  a  surplus  of  advantages  over  evils," '  what 
amazing  leaps  in  political  affairs  were  made  in  America  from 
1776  to  1787! 

If  the  convention  was  in  advance  of  the  world  on  this 
question,  its  leaders  occupied  a  higher  moral  position  than 
the  body  of  which  they  in  a  great  measure  shaped  the  ends. 
Washington,  although  a  slave-holder,  was  averse  to  buying 
or  selling  slaves,  and  on  his  plantation  the  family  relation 
among  the  negroes  was  respected.3  He  repeatedly  urged 
upon  the  Legislature  of  his  State  the  necessity  of  taking 
measures  which  would  result  in  the  gradual  extinction  of 
slavery.8  The  notion  increased  with  his  years  and  official 
experience,  for  while  President,  in  a  private  letter,  he  em- 
phatically expressed  the  opinion  that  at  a  period  not  re- 
mote the  system  must  be  abolished  in  Virginia  and  Mary- 
land ;  *  and  by  his  last  will  he  emancipated  his  own  slaves.' 
Hamilton  took  the  position  of  secretary  of  the  New  York. 
Abolition  Society,  and  was  requested  by  Lafayette  to  propose 
him  as  a  fellow-member  of  the  same  society.8  Madison,  in 
the  constitutional  convention,  earnestly  opposed  the  section 
which  delayed  the  prohibition  of  the  slave-trade  until  1808, 
saying,  "  Twenty  years  will  produce  all  the  mischief  that  can 
be  apprehended  from  the  liberty  to  import  slaves.  So  long 
a  term  will  be  more  dishonorable  to  the  American  character 
than  to  say  nothing  about  it  in  the  Constitution ;" 7  and  in 
the  Federalist  his  warm  advocacy  of  the  Constitution  did 

1  Lecky's  England,  vol.  vi.  p.  220. 

2  "  It  was  once  reported  in  the  army  that  certain  captured  despatches 
from  the  General  were  found  upon  the  person  of  a  runaway  slave  belong- 
ing to  him.     Somebody  mustered  courage  to  ask  Washington  if  this  was 
true.  '  Sir,'  said  the  Chief,  coldly,  *  I  never  had  a  slave  run  away  from 
me>'  » — Century  Magazine,  vol.  xxxvii.  p.  850;  infra,  Chap.  III.  p.  267. 

'  Bancroft,  vol.  vi.  p.  179 ;  Sparks,  vol.  ix.  pp.  159,  164. 

*  Sparks,  vol.  xii.  p.  326. 

*  Bancroft,  vol.  vi.  p.  180 ;  Sparks,  vol.  i.  pp.  569,  570. 

'  Letter  of  Lafayette  to  Hamilton,  quoted  by  Greeley,  American  Con- 
flict, vol.  i.  p.  51. 

7  Life  and  Times  of  Madison,  Rives,  vol.  ii.  p.  449. 


22  SLAVERY  QUESTION  IN  THE  FIRST  CONGRESS          [Cn.  I. 

not  forbid  his  saying  that  it  would  have  been  better  to  suffer 
the  prohibition  of  the  slave-trade  to  go  into  immediate  opera- 
tion. *  Franklin  was  President  of  the  Pennsylvania  Aboli- 
tion Society,  organized  for  promoting  the  abolition  of  slavery. 
Jefferson  and  John  Adains  had  no  part  in  framing  the  Con- 
stitution, for  both  were  then  serving  their  country  at  foreign 
courts ;  but,  although  soon  to  represent  opposing  political 
parties,  they  were  at  one  on  the  question  of  negro  servitude. 
Jefferson,  in  a  letter  written  at  about  this  time,  expressing 
his  ardent  desire  to  see  not  only  the  slave-trade  but  also 
slavery  abolished,  laments  that  those  whom  he  represents 
have  not  been  able  to  give  their  voice  against  the  practice.3 
John  Adams,  through  his  whole  life,  had  held  slavery  in  such 
abhorrence  that  he  had  never  owned  a  slave,  though  he  had 
lived  for  many  years  in  times  when  the  practice  was  not 
disgraceful,  and  when  the  best  men  in  his  vicinity  thought 
it  not  inconsistent  with  their  character.8 

In  1790,  during  the  second  session  of  the  First  Congress, 
petitions  from  the  Quakers  of  several  States  were  presented, 
praying  against  the  continuance  of  the  slave-trade.  The 
Pennsylvania  Abolition  Society,  through  its  President, 
Franklin,  earnestly  entreated  the  serious  attention  of  Con- 
gress to  the  subject  of  slavery ;  and  further  prayed  "  that 
you  will  be  pleased  to  countenance  the  restoration  of  liberty 
to  those  unhappy  men,  who  are  degraded  into  perpetual 
bondage  .  .  .  and  that  you  will  step  to  the  very  verge 
of  the  power  vested  in  you  for  discouraging  every  species 
of  traffic  in  the  persons  of  our  fellow-men." 4  These  petitions 
gave  rise  in  the  House  of  Eepresentatives  to  a  warm  and  at 
times  excited  discussion  on  the  question  whether  the  memo- 
rials should  be  received  and  referred  to  a  committee.  The 
burden  of  the  argument  against  their  reception  was  borne 
by  members  from  South  Carolina  and  Georgia,  and  was  to 

1  Federalist,  No.  42. 

8  Jefferson's  Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  357. 

9  Adams's  Works,  quoted  by  Greeley,  American  Conflict,  vol.  i.  p.  52. 
*  Benton's  Abridgment  of  the  Debates  of  Congress,  vol.  i.  p.  208. 


CH.  I.]          SLAVERY   QUESTION  IN  THE  FIRST   CONGRESS  23 

the  effect  that  slavery,  being  commended  by  the  Bible,  could 
not  be  wrong ;  that  the  Southern  States  would  not  have  en- 
tered into  the  Confederation  unless  their  property  had  been 
guaranteed  to  them,  and  any  action  of  the  general  gov- 
ernment looking  to  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves  would 
not  be  submitted  to.  South  Carolina  and  Georgia,  it  was 
asserted,  could  only  be  cultivated  by  slaves,  for  the  climate, 
the  nature  of  the  soil,  and  ancient  habits  precluded  the 
whites  from  performing  the  labor ;  if  the  slaves  were  eman- 
cipated they  would  not  remain  in  those  States,  and  the 
whole  of  the  low  country,  all  the  fertile  rice  and  indigo 
swamps,  must  be  deserted,  and  they  would  become  a  wil- 
derness ;  furthermore,  the  prohibition  of  the  slave-trade  was 
then  unconstitutional. 

After  several  days'  debate,  in  Which  the  opinions  of  the 
North  and  those  of  South  'Carolina  and  Georgia  clashed, 
Madison  poured  oil  upon  the  troubled  waters,  saying :  "  The 
debate  has  taken  a  serious  turn,  and  it  will  be  owing  to  this 
alone  if  an  alarm  is  created.  ...  If  there  was  the  slightest 
tendency  by  the  commitment  to  break  in  upon  the  Constitu- 
tion, he  would  object  to  it.  The  petition  prayed  in  general 
terms  for  the  interference  of  Congress  so  far  as  they  were 
constitutionally  authorized.  .  .  .  He  admitted  that  Congress 
is  restricted  by  the  Constitution  from  taking  measures  to 
abolish  the  slave-trade.  Yet  there  are  a  variety  of  ways  by 
which  it  could  countenance  the  abolition ;  and  regulations 
might  be  made  in  relation  to  the  introduction  of  them  into 
the  new  States  to  be  formed  out  of  the  Western  territory." ' 

The  memorials  went  through  the  usual  legislative  forms. 
It  was  finally  resolved  by  the  House  that  Congress  could  not 
prohibit  the  slave-trade  until  1808,  and  that  Congress  had  no 
authority  to  interfere  in  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves  or  in 
the  treatment  of  them  within  any  of  the  States.8  This  last 
resolution  is  of  great  historic  importance.  "While  it  had  not 
the  binding  force  of  law,  it  has  always  been  considered  as 


Annals  vi  congress,  vol.  i.  p.  1246.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  ii.  p.  1528. 


24  THE  FUGITIVE  SLAVE  LAW  [On.  I 

an  authoritative  and  just  interpretation  of  the  Constitution. 
The  same  principle  was  more  than  once  afterwards  reaffirmed 
by  Congress,  and  no  political  party  ever  questioned  the  doc- 
trine. The  debate  and  resolution  settled  this  point.1  In  all  the 
slavery  agitation,  this  principle  stood  out  with  the  force  of  a 
fundamental  truth ;  and  in  our  consideration  of  the  subsequent 
history,  it  can  never  too  often  be  called  to  mind  that  the  polit- 
ical parties  of  the  Northern  States,  and  their  senators  and  rep- 
resentatives in  Congress,  scrupulously  respected  the  constitu- 
tional protection  given  to  the  peculiar  institution  of  the  South, 
until,  by  her  own  action,  secession  dissolved  the  bonds  of  union. 
In  1793  the  first  Fugitive  Slave  law  was  passed.  The  cir- 
cumstance that  led  to  its  enactment  deserves  notice.  Three 
white  men  had  kidnapped  a  free  negro  in  Pennsylvania  and 
taken  him  to  Virginia.  The  governor  of  Pennsylvania  asked 
the  rendition  of  the  kidnappers,  which  Virginia  refused  on 
the  ground  that  there  was  no  law  carrying  into  effect  the 
constitutional  provision  for  the  surrender  of  fugitives  from 
justice.  The  governor  of  Pennsylvania  then  submitted  the 
facts  to  President  Washington,  who  brought  them  before 
Congress.  The  result  was  the  passage  of  the  act  known  as 
the  Fugitive  Slave  law  of  1793,  the  two  first  sections  of 
which  related  to  the  surrender  of  fugitives  from  justice,  and 
the  two  last  to  the  rendition  of  fugitive  slaves.  As  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  Senate  were  secret,  neither  the  nature  of  the 
discussion  nor  the  difference  of  opinion  elicited  in  that  body 
during  the  consideration  of  the  bill  is  known.  It  passed  the 
House,  however,  without  debate :  seven  votes  only  are  record- 
ed against  it,  and  two  of  these  were  from  the  slave  States.* 


1  '*  The  introduction  of  the  Quaker  memorial  respecting  slavery  was, 
to  be  sure,  not  only  ill-timed,  but  occasioned  a  great  waste  of  time.  The 
final  decision  thereon,  however,  was  as  favorable  as  the  proprietors  of 
this  species  of  property  could  well  have  expected,  considering  the  light 
in  which  slavery  is  viewed  by  a  large  part  of  the  Union." — Washington 
to  David  Stuart,  June,  1790,  Sparks,  vol.  x.  p.  98. 

1  See  Fay  House  monograph,  Fugitive  Slaves,  by  Marion  G.  McDou- 
gall,  and  the  authorities  cited,  especially  State  Papers,  Annals  of  Congresa 


CH.  I.]  THE  COTTON-GIN  25 

The  invention  of  the  cotton-gin,  in  the  year  1793,  was  of 
far  greater  importance  to  the  landed  proprietor  of  negroes 
than  the  statutory  provision  for  the  recovery  of  fugitive 
slaves.  As  already  noted,  it  was  destined  to  develop  South- 
ern industry  and  foster  slave  labor  more  effectually  than  ex- 
treme pro-slavery  legislation  could  have  done,  and  to  a  wider 
extent  than  the  most  earnest  abolitionist  could  have  feared. 
The  cotton  plant  was  indigenous  to  America,  and  the  climate 
of  the  Southern  States  was  peculiarly  adapted  to  its  culture. 
But  the  great  obstacle  in  the  way  of  cotton-production  was 
the  excessive  labor  necessary  to  clear  the  cotton  fibres  from 
the  seed.  The  complete  separation  of  a  pound  of  fibre  was 
an  average  day's  work ;  hence  the  great  cost  of  preparing 
it  for  the  market  limited  the  growth  of  cotton  to  coun- 
tries like  India,  where  labor  is  very  cheap.  Whitney's  in- 
vention wholly  changed  these  conditions.  By  the  use  of  his 
gin,  one  man  was  able  to  separate  fifty  pounds  of  cotton 
from  the  seed  in  a  day,  and  in  this  way  the  development  of 
a  great  agricultural  industry  was  made  possible.1  As  cotton- 
cultivation  depended  more  on  climate  than  soil,  a  large  por- 
tion of  the  land  between  36°  north  latitude  and  the  Gulf  of 
Mexico  was  well  adapted  to  it.  Whitney's  invention  came 
into  use  at  an  opportune  time,  for  complaints  had  been  made 
that  rice  and  indigo,  the  staple  products  of  South  Carolina 
and  Georgia,  were  hardly  worth  growing,  on  account  of 
their  extremely  low  price.2  Curiously  enough,  in  this  same 
year  (1793)  a  protective  duty  of  three  cents  per  pound  was 
placed  upon  cotton,  the  framers  of  the  tariff  little  dreaming 
that  this  article  was  soon  to  become  and  long  to  remain  our 
greatest  article  of  export.  Yet  this  is  not  more  remarkable 


and  Senate  journals;  Benton's  Abridgment  of  Debates,  vol.  i.  p.  417. 
Hildreth  says :  This  act  "  at  the  time  of  its  passage  and  for  many  years 
after  attracted  little  attention."  At  a  later  period  the  provisions  were 
denounced  as  "  exceedingly  harsh  and  peremptory,"  vol.  iv.  p.  406. 

1  Whitney  to  Jefferson,  Nov.  24th,  1793,  Memoir  of  Eli  "Whitney,  Olm- 
sted.  For  an  interesting  account  of  "Whitney  and  his  invention,  see 
Greeley's  American  Conflict,  and  McMaster's  United  States. 

*  Hildreth,  vol.  iv.  p.  71. 


26  THE   COTTON-GIN  [Cn.  I. 

than  the  seizure  of  eight  bags  of  it  in  England,  a  few  years 
before,  on  the  ground  that  so  great  a  quantity  could  not  be 
supplied  from  the  United  States ;  and  when  Jay  negotiated 
the  treaty  of  1794  with  Great  Britain,  cotton  was  of  so  little 
significance  that  he  did  not  know  it  was  an  article  of  export 
from  his  country.1  The  production  of  cotton  from  1791  to 
1860  increased  more  than  a  thousandfold,2  and  more  than 
one  half  of  the  negro  slaves  were  engaged  in  its  culture.3 
What,  asked  Webster,  created  the  new  feeling  in  favor  of 
slavery  in  the  South,  so  that  it  became  an  institution — a  cher- 
ished institution — "  no  evil,  no  scourge,  but  a  great  religious, 
social,  and  moral  blessing  ?  I  suppose  this  is  owing  to  the 
rapid  growth  and  sudden  extension  of*the  cotton  plantations 
of  the  South.  It  was  the  cotton  interest  that  gave  a  new 
desire  to  promote  slavery,  to  spread  it,  and  to  use  its  labor."  * 
Among  the  Fathers  were  men  who  had  a  correct  notion 
of  the  possible  future  growth  of  the  country,  but  no  one 
could  have  dreamed  that  one  of  the  very  first  of  those  splen- 
did mechanical  inventions,  which  are  justly  our  boast  and 
pride,  would  have  the  effect  of  riveting  more  strongly  than 
ever  the  fetters  of  the  slave.  No  one  could  have  imagined 
that  economic  conditions  were  destined  to  prevail  that 
would  bring  to  naught  the  moral  and  humane  expectations 
of  the  wisest  statesmen  of  the  time.  It  is  more  than  prob- 
able that  the  invention  of  the  cotton-gin  prevented  the 
peaceful  abolition  of  slavery.  Kice,  sugar,  and  cotton  were, 
apparently,  the  only  products  for  which  slave  labor  was  nec- 
essary ;'  and  sugar  and  rice,  compared  with  cotton,  were  in- 


1  Hildreth,  vol.  iv.  p.  545 ;  Webster's  Works,  vol.  v.  p.  338. 

•  Production,  1791,  2,000,000  pounds;  1860,  2,154,820,800  pounds. 

» In  1850,  according  to  De  Bow,  1,800,000  of  the  3,204,051  slaves  were 
engaged  in  the  cultivation  of  cotton.  Compendium  of  Census,  1850; 
Olmsted's  Cotton  Kingdom,  vol.  i.  p.  17.  I  have  never  seen  any  estimate 
for  1860,  but  the  ratio,  if  changed,  must  have  been  greater,  as  the  cotton 
crop  of  1860  was  more  than  double  that  of  1850:  1850,  2,445,793  bales; 
1860,  5,387,052  bales. 

«  7th  of  March,  1850,  speech,  Webster's  Works,  vol.  v.  p.  838. 


CH.  I]  PURCHASE  OF  LOUISIANA  27 

significant  products.1  Tobacco  and  grain  could  be  cultivated 
with  greater  economy  by  freemen.  Had  it  not  been  for  the 
new  cotton-planters'  demand  for  negroes,  which,  for  the 
border  States,  made  slave -breeding  a  profitable  industry, 
Maryland,  Virginia,  and  Kentucky  would  have  been  re- 
claimed from  slavery,  and  Missouri  would  not  have  been 
admitted  as  a  slave  State.  The  moral  and  political  force  of 
so  much  free  territory  would  have  confined  slavery  below 
the  latitude  of  36°  30',  and  the  well-founded  hopes  of  the 
framers  of  the  Constitution  might  have  been  realized. 

Cotton  fostered  slavery ;  slavery  was  the  cause  of  the  war 
between  the  States.  That  slavery  is  a  blessing,  and  cotton  is 
king,  were  associated  ideas  with  which  the  Southern  mind 
was  imbued  in  the  decade  before  the  war.  On  the  floor  of 
the  Senate  it  was  declared  that  cotton  had  vanquished  all 
powers,  and  that  its  supremacy  could  no  longer  be  doubted. 
The  leaders  of  the  secession  were  confident  that  the  influ- 
ence of  the  great  Southern  staple  would  compel,  if  not  ac- 
quiescence on  the  part  of  the  North,  at  least  recognition 
and  open  assistance  from  England. 

The  closing  years  of  the  eighteenth  century  need  not  de- 
tain us,  although  several  warm  debates  on  the  slavery  ques- 
tion took  place  in  Congress,  growing  out  of  petitions  that 
in  different  ways  brought  the  national  evil  to  the  attention 
of  Congress  and  the  country. 

In  the  beginning  of  the  new  century,  President  Jefferson 
effected  the  acquisition  of  Louisiana.3  The  possession  of  the 
mouth  of  the  Mississippi  River  was  a  commercial  necessity, 
and  Jefferson  showed  wisdom  in  promptly  seizing  the  op- 
portunity presented  by  a  fortunate  combination  of  circum- 


1  In  I860,  value  of  cotton  production,  $244.256,368 ;  of  rice,  $7,242,324; 
of  sugar,  $20,761,485. 

8  Louisiana  comprised  what  is  now  the  States  of  Louisiana,  Arkansas, 
Missouri, Iowa.  Nebraska,  parts  of  Minnesota  and  Colorado,  nearly  all  of 
Kansas  and  Montana,  the  Dakotas,  Wyoming,  part  of  Idaho,  and  the 
Indian  Territory. 


28  SLAVERY  [Cn.  I. 

stances  to  secure  the  purchase  of  this  magnificent  domain 
from  Napoleon,  First  Consul.  During  the  negotiations  and 
the  ratification  of  the  treaty,  the  question  of  slavery  did  not 
arise.  The  notion  that  this  territory  would  be  an  accession 
of  strength  to  the  slave-power  seemed  not  to  occur  to  Jef- 
ferson, to  his  advisers,  or  to  the  ardent  advocates  of  South- 
ern institutions ;  and  although  opposition  to  the  purchase 
was  made  by  the  Federalists,  it  was  not  on  the  ground  that 
it  would  lead  to  the  extension  of  slavery.  Nor  was  this 
surprising.  By  this  time  all  the  States  but  South  Carolina 
had  prohibited  the  slave-trade.1  The  year  after  the  pur- 
chase of  Louisiana  (in  1804),  New  Jersey  abolished  slavery ; 
she  was  the  seventh  and  last  of  the  original  thirteen  States 
to  dedicate  her  soil  to  freedom.  A  conviction  prevailed 
that  the  power  of  slavery  was  rapidly  diminishing.  Even 
John  Adams,  while  President,  had  shared  this  belief.3  It 
might  now  have  been  possible  to  set  apart  to  freedom,  by 
solemn  legislative  act,  the  whole  of  the  new  territory,  ex- 
cepting that  portion  which  afterwards  became  the  State  of 
Louisiana,  where  slavery  existed  and  was  protected  by  the 
treaty  of  cession.  The  Quakers  petitioned  that  Congress 
would  take  measures  to  prevent  the  introduction  of  slavery 
into  any  of  the  territories  of  the  United  States,  but  the  op- 
portune moment  for  legislation  to  that  end  was  not  seized. 
The  virtual  understanding  at  the  time  the  Constitution 
was  framed,  in  regard  to  the  prohibition  of  the  slave-trade, 
was  carried  out.  President  Jefferson,  in  his  annual  message 
to  Congress,  December,  1806,  said  :  "  I  congratulate  you,  fel- 
low-citizens, on  the  approach  of  the  period  at  which  you 
may  interpose  your  authority  constitutionally  to  withdraw 
the  citizens  of  the  United  States  from  all  further  participa- 
tion in  those  violations  of  human  rights  which  have  been 
so  long  continued  on  the  unoffending  inhabitants  of  Africa, 


1  South  Carolina  had  passed  a  law  prohibiting  the  slave-trade,  but 
afterwards  repealed  the  act. 

9  History  of  the  United  States,  Schouler,  vol.  ii.  p.  58. 


CH.  I.]  THE  FOREIGN  SLAVE-TRADE— MISSOURI  29 

and  which  the  morality,  the  reputation,  and  the  best  inter- 
ests of  our  country  have  long  been  eager  to  proscribe."1 
Congress  took  prompt  action.  A  bill  to  prohibit  the  impor- 
tation of  slaves  after  January  1st,  1808,  was  passed  by  the 
Senate,  and,  although  its  different  provisions  were  the  sub- 
ject of  considerable  debate  in  the  House,  it  was  finally 
passed  with  only  five  dissenting  voices.  This  was  practi- 
cal unanimity,  as  the  senators  who  voted  against  the  bill 
were  from  both  free  and  slave  States,  and  their  objections 
were  not  to  the  principle  of  the  act,  but  to  matters  of  detail. 
In  bringing  about  this  devoutly  wished-for  consummation, 
the  abolition  societies,  which  existed  in  all  of  the  States  as 
far  south  as  Virginia,  played  an  important  part.  Their 
meetings,  their  annual  conventions,  their  memorials  to  Con- 
gress, their  addresses  to  the  country,  were  active  agencies 
to  foster  right  thinking  and  to  encourage  effective  action 
respecting  the  slave-traffic.  The  first  annual  convention  of 
these  societies  had  proclaimed  that  "  freedom  and  slavery 
cannot  long  exist  together;"  and,  in  the  years  that  followed, 
their  influence  did  much  to  effect  the  abolition  of  slavery 
in  the  States  north  of  Mason  and  Dixon's  line.  With  the 
prohibition  of  the  slave-trade,  however,  it  seemed  as  if  their 
occupation  was  gone.  The  national  conventions  ceased, 
meetings  were  no  longer,  or  rarely,  held,  and  most  of  the  so- 
cieties died  out.2  The  first  anti-slavery  movement  in  the 
United  States  was  no  more.  Virginia  had  by  this  time 
(1807)  given  up  any  immediate  hope  of  becoming  a  free 
State ;  her  interests,  her  sentiments,  her  social  conditions, 
were  gradually  drawing  her  into  unison  and  sympathy  with 
her  sister  States  farther  south. 

The  question  of  the  admission  of  Missouri  made  evident 
to  the  country  the  influence  that  the  profitable  cultivation 
of  cotton  had  exercised  on  Southern  opinion,  and  served  as 
a  measure  of  the  radically  divergent  ideas  of  the  North  and 


1  Jefferson's  Works,  vol.  viii.  p.  67. 

2  See  note  at  the  end  of  the  Chapter. 


30  MISSOURI  [CH.  I. 

the  South.  The  opinion  of  the  North  on  slavery  was  the  same 
as  at  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution ;  that  of  the  South 
had  retrograded.  Missouri  was  a  part  of  the  Louisiana  pur- 
chase, and,  having  now  a  population  of  56,000  freemen  and 
10,000  slaves,  she  desired  recognition  as  a  State  of  the  Union. 
The  usual  form  of  bill  was  prepared ;  but  when,  during  the 
winter  session  of  1819,  it  came  to  be  considered  in  the  House, 
Tallmadge,  of  New  York,  offered  an  amendment  providing 
that  the  further  introduction  of  slavery  should  be  prohibit- 
ed, and  that  all  children  born  in  the  State  after  its  admission 
into  the  Union  should  be  free  at  the  age  of  twenty-five. 
Since  the  organization  of  the  government  new  States  had 
been  admitted  from  time  to  time,  and  by  tacit  agreement 
had  entered  in  pairs,  a  free  State  and  a  slave  State  coining 
in  at  about  the  same  time.  Thus,  Vermont  and  Kentucky, 
Tennessee  and  Ohio,  Louisiana  and  Indiana,  Mississippi  and 
Illinois,  had  each  been  an  offset  to  the  other.  Alabama  was 
on  the  point  of  admission  as  a  slave  State,  and  the  usage 
would  require  that  another  free  State  should  be  coincidently 
added  to  the  Union.  The  North  had  been  growing  more 
rapidly  than  the  South ;  in  1790  the  two  sections  were  near- 
ly equal  in  population,  but  in  1820,  in  a  total  of  less  than 
ten  millions,  there  was  a  difference  of  nearly  700,000  in  favor 
of  the  North.  Although  the  contest  over  Missouri  took  place 
in  a  House  of  Represent  at  ives  based  on  the  apportionment 
of  the  census  of  1810,  yet  the  Northern  States,  including 
Delaware,  had  a  clear  majority  of  twenty-nine  members.1 

Missouri  had  slavery,  and  was  determined  to  keep  it ;  and 
the  supporters  of  the  slave  interest  in  Congress  would  not 
for  one  moment  consent  to  a  restriction  which  should  create 
bars  to  the  further  increase  of  slaves  within  her  borders. 
Tallmadge's  proposed  amendment,  therefore,  caused  an  ex- 
citing debate.  Among  the  first  to  speak,  vehemently  op- 
posing the  restriction,  was  Henry  Clay,  Speaker  of  the 


1  There  were  106  from  the  North,  2  of  these  from  Delaware;  and  77 
from  the  South. 


CH.  I]  MISSOURI  31 

House,  whose  influence  and  power  in  the  direction  of  affairs 
was  great.  None  of  his  speeches  on  this  subject  have  been 
reported ;  but  from  references  made  to  them  by  his  oppo- 
nents we  know  that  he  denied  the  constitutional  power  of 
Congress  to  impose  conditions  on  newly  organized  States  in 
any  way  limiting  their  sovereign  rights ;  that  he  contemptu- 
ously asserted  that  the  anti-slavery  men  were  troubled  with 
negrophobia,  and  argued  that  by  spreading  slavery  its  evils 
might  be  cured,  or  at  any  rate  palliated.1  One  historian  re- 
lates that  Clay,  almost  with  tears  in  his  eyes,  pressed  the 
argument  that  the  restriction  of  slavery  would  be  cruel  to 
the  slaves.  While  it  would  not  lessen  their  numbers,  it 
would  expose  them,  crowded  together  "  in  the  old,  exhausted 
States,  to  destitution,  and  even  to  lean  and  haggard  starva- 
tion, instead  of  allowing  them  to  share  the  fat  plenty  of  the 
new  West." 2  This  reasoning  of  Clay  is  the  gist  of  the  most 
weighty  arguments  relied  upon  by  the  opponents  of  the 
amendment ;  but  they  also  urged  that  it  was  in  violation 
of  the  treaty  ceding  Louisiana,3  and  the  territorial  delegate 
from  Missouri  protested  against  the  restriction  as  a  shame- 
ful discrimination  against  Missouri,  which  would  eventually 
endanger  the  Union. 

The  Northern  members  in  favor  of  the  restriction  met 
the  constitutional  objection  by  pointing  to  the  fact  that  the 
restriction  imposed  by  the  Ordinance  of  1787  was  a  condi- 
tion made  by  Congress  precedent  to  the  admission  of  Ohio, 
Indiana,  and  Illinois ;  denied  that  the  amendment  in  any  way 
violated  the  treaty  with  France ;  averred  that  slavery  was.  a 
moral  and  political  evil,  and  directly  opposed  to  the  asser- 
tion of  our  Declaration  of  Independence  that  all  men  are 


1  See  Life  of  Clay.  Schurz,  vol.  i.  p.  179  ;  Taylor's  and  Fuller's  Speech- 
es, Benton's  Abridgment  of  Debates,  vol.  vi. 

a  Hildreth,  vol.  vi.  p.  664. 

*  This  argument,  which  reappears  in  1850-60,  is  with  force  refuted  by 
Justice  Curtis  in  his  opinion  in  the  Dred  Scott  case.  Life  and  Writings 
of  B.  R.  Curtis,  vol.  ii.  p.  300. 


32  MISSOURI  [On.  I. 

created  equal,  while  it  had  only  through  necessity  been  tol- 
erated by  the  Constitution.  Tallraadge,  who  closed  the  de- 
bate, met  the  assertion  of  a  Georgia  member,  that  if  the 
North  persisted  in  the  restriction  the  Union  would  be  dis- 
solved, by  a  fierce  note  of  defiance ; '  and  he  proceeded  to 
delineate  the  evil  of  slavery  with  impassioned  eloquence, 
calling  it  "this  monstrous  scourge  of  the  human  race," 
fraught  with  "  dire  calamities  to  us  as  individuals  and  to 
our  nation."  The  speech  produced  a  sensation,  and  under 
its  influence  the  vote  was  taken.  The  Tallmadge  amend- 
ment was  passed  by  a  vote  of  87  to  76.  The  bill  for  the 
admission  of  Missouri  as  amended  went  to  the  Senate,  which 
rejected  the  slavery  restriction  by  the  entire  Southern  vote, 
assisted  by  one  senator  from  Massachusetts,  one  from  Penn- 
sylvania, two  from  Illinois,  and  two  from  Delaware.9  If  all 
the  senators  from  the  free  States  had  voted  for  the  amend- 
ment, it  would  have  been  carried.  Each  House  held  tena- 
ciously to  its  own  ideas;  and  when  adjournment  came, 
March  4th,  1819,  no  agreement  had  been  reached. 

Then  began  a  discussion  which  engrossed  the  press  of  the 
country,  and  prompted  many  public  meetings.  The  legis- 
latures of  Northern  States  adopted  resolutions  protesting 
against  the  admission  of  Missouri  unless  the  further  intro- 
duction of  slavery  should  be  prohibited.  Illinois  and  New 
England  were  alone  officially  silent,  but  public  meetings 
were  held  all  over  New  England — Boston  being  impressed 
by  the  eloquence  of  Webster — and  they  proclaimed  in  strong 
language  the  same  sentiment.  Virginia  and  Kentucky  were 
equally  zealous  for  slavery ;  Maryland  agreed  with  Virginia, 
but  a  meeting  of  citizens  in  Baltimore,  over  which  the 
mayor  presided,  petitioned  Congress  against  the  further 
extension  of  slavery.  The  legislature  of  the  slave  State  of 
Delaware  was  on  the  side  of  freedom,  but  her  senators  and 


1  A  portion  of  this  speech  is  given  by  Hildreth,  vol.  vi.  p.  665. 
5  The  vote  was  22  against  slavery-restriction,  and  16  for  it. 


CH.  I.]  GROWING  IMPORTANCE  OF  THE  SENATE  33 

representatives  did  not  by  their  votes  give  expression  to 
the  public  will. 

In  January,  1820,  the  Senate  resumed  the  consideration  of 
the  Missouri  question,  and  for  the  first  time  in  the  history  of 
the  country  its  proceedings  awakened  more  interest  than 
those  of  the  House.  Hitherto  it  had  been  the  debates  of 
the  representatives  which  had  excited  attention  and  edu- 
cated public  opinion.  Indeed,  during  the  first  years  of  the 
government  all  the  debates  of  the  Senate  were  secret,  and, 
though  they  had  long  since  been  open,  sparkling  contests 
did  not  take  place  in  that  dignified  body,  nor  was  that  col- 
lision of  mind  with  mind  seen  which  is  necessary  to  provoke 
general  interest  in  legislative  procedure.  Madison  never 
served  in  the  Senate ;  he  was  an  efficient  worker  in  putting 
in  motion  the  legislative  machine  of  the  new  government, 
but  his  wise  counsel  and  calm  reasoning  were  heard  in  the 
House.  In  the  House  occurred  the  great  debate  on  the  Jay 
treaty,  when  Gallatin  first  appeared  as  a  leader,  and  when 
Fisher  Ames  made  the  pathetic  appeal  in  its  favor  that 
ranks  among  the  remarkable  efforts  of  American  eloquence. 
John  Randolph  was  in  the  House  when  he  breathed  out 
those  invectives  and  gave  free  course  to  those  sarcasms 
which  have  entitled  him  to  a  singular  place  in  congressional 
history.  Clay  had  been  a  senator  for  a  portion  of  two  terms, 
but  he  deemed  it  a  welcome  change  to  be  elected  to  the 
House,  and  it  was  there  that  up  to  this  time  his  public  rep- 
utation had  been  made.  Webster  and  Calhoun  had  been 
representatives,  but  it  was  after  1820  that  Webster,  Clay, 
and  Calhoun  were  to  make  themselves  and  their  Senate 
forever  renowned.  Nor  was  it  surprising  that  the  House 
should  be  the  better  arena  for  government  by  discussion. 
That  body  was  not  as  large  and  unwieldy  as  it  has  since 
become,  and  its  hall  had  not  the  vast  proportions  of  the 
present  chamber.  The  Senate  had  too  small  a  number  of 
members  to  be  the  almost  ideal  body  of  debate  that  it  after- 
wards became ;  for  at  the  organization  of  the  government 
only  twenty-two  senators  convened,  and  their  deliberations 
I.— 3 


34  WILLIAM  PINKNEY  [CH.  I. 

savored  rather  of  the  cabinet  than  of  the  legislative  body.1 
But  in  the  Senate  of  1820,  consisting  of  forty-four  members, 
began  that  series  of  parliamentary  efforts  which  in  elo- 
quence have  never  been  surpassed. 

The  oration  of  William  Pinkney,  of  Maryland,  was  the 
masterpiece  of  the  session.  He  had  served  his  country 
abroad  with  ability  and  honor,  but  had  won  his  greatest 
renown  at  the  bar.a  When  Daniel  Webster  came  to  Wash- 
ington to  practise  in  the  Supreme  Court,  Pinkney  was  the 
acknowledged  leader  of  American  lawyers,  and  this  surpass- 
ing eminence  he  held  to  the  day  of  his  death,  although  his 
position  began  to  be  shaken  after  the  Boston  lawyer  had 
made  the  great  argument  in  the  Dartmouth  College  case. 
Perhaps  a  perception  of  Webster's  growing  power  and  fut- 
ure rank  led  Pinkney  to  say  to  his  friend  and  biographer 
that  he  "  did  not  desire  to  live  a  moment  after  the  standing 
he  had  acquired  at  the  bar  was  lost,  or  even  brought  into 
doubt  or  question." 3  This  great  lawyer  was  as  vain  of  a 
handsome  face,  accomplished  manners,  and  an  elegant  dress 
as  he  was  proud  of  his  legal  acumen.  Clad  in  the  extreme 
of  fashion,  he  preferred  to  be  regarded  an  idle  and  polished 
man  of  society  rather  than  to  be  looked  upon  as  what  he 
really  was,  an  unwearied  student.4  Always  preparing  his 
speeches  with  the  utmost  care,  writing  out  the  showy  pas- 
sages and  learning  them  by  heart,  rehearsing  in  private  the 


1  North  Carolina  and  Rhode  Island  were  not  represented  at  the  first 
session  of  the  first  Congress. 

•  "  America  never  sent  an  abler  representative  to  the  Court  of  London." 
—History  of  the  United  States,  Henry  Adams,  vol.  vi.  p.  21.     Chief  Jus- 
tice Marshall  remarked  shortly  after  the  death  of  Pinkney  that  Pinkney 
"was  the  greatest  man  he  had  ever  seen  in  a  court  of  justice."     Tyler's 
Taney,  p.  141. 

•  Life  of  Pinkney,  Wheaton,  p.  179. 

•  "William  Pinkney,  a  large,  handsome  man  and  remarkable  for  his 
somewhat  foppish  dress,  wearing,  when  I  saw  him,  a  white  waistcoat  and 
white  top-boots." — Recollections  of  a  Lifetime,  S.  G.  Goodrich,  vol.  ii 
p.  399. 


CH.  I.]  WILLIAM   PINKNEY  35 

appropriate  gestures  and  rhetorical  points,  he  sought  to  con- 
vey the  notion  that  he  spoke  on  the  spur  of  the  moment. 

The  speech  of  Pinkney,  a  labor  of  many  weeks,  was  a  re- 
ply to  arguments  that  had  been  urged  during  the  last  ses- 
sion in  favor  of  slavery  restriction  by  the  veteran  Rufus 
King.  King  was  not  only  the  head  of  the  anti-slavery  par- 
ty in  the  Senate,  but  the  leader  in  the  agitation  that  had 
spread  throughout  the  country.  He  had  made  two  speeches 
at  the  previous  session,  neither  of  which  had  been  reported, 
but  abstracts  of  them  were  published  by  the  'New  York 
committee,  and  widely  circulated  as  campaign  •  documents. 
They  had  been  potent  agencies  in  arousing  and  educating 
Northern  sentiment.  Pinkney's  speech  was  never  printed,1 
but  from  contemporary  accounts  we  know  that  it  was  re- 
garded as  the  most  remarkable  oration  of  this  Congress,  and 
by  all  odds  the  most  effective  reasoning  on  the  Southern 
side.  Benton  speaks  of  it  as  a  magnificent  exhibition,  the 
most  gorgeous  speech  ever  delivered  in  the  Senate  and  the 
most  applauded,  and  Clay  thought  it  "  a  display  of  astonish- 
ing eloquence." 2  It  was  the  master  effort  of  Pinkney's  life. 
All  of  his  auditors  were  impressed  with  a  fine  amplification 
of  a  passage  in  Burke's  speech  on  "  Conciliation  with  Amer- 
ica," which  afforded  the  orator  an  opportunity  to  make  an 
adroit  application  of  the  warning  of  the  English  commoner, 
that  the  spirit  of  liberty  was  more  high  and  haughty  in  the 
slave-holding  colonies  than  in  those  to  the  northward.  Pinkney 
made  two  speeches  against  imposing  the  restriction  of  slavery 
on  Missouri  as  a  condition  for  admission ;  the  second  speech, 
made  also  in  reply  to  King,  has  been  reported,  and  it  gives 
us  an  idea  of  his  florid  eloquence  and  power  of  reasoning. 

1  For  the  first  thirty-five  years  of  the  government,  the  debates  of  Con- 
gress were  not  reported  verbatim,  as  they  have  been  since.  Pinkney 
preferred  to  rest  his  reputation  on  the  sensation  produced  by  the  de- 
livery of  the  oration,  and  did  not  prepare  it  for  publication.  Benton's 
Thirty  Years'  View,  vol.  i.  p.  20. 

*  Thirty  Years'  View,  vol.  i.  p.  20 ;  Private  Correspondence  of  H.  Cl»y, 
Colton,  p.  61. 


36  THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  [CH.  I. 

Having  a  fine  command  of  language,  acquired  by  the  pro- 
found study  of  the  accurate  use  of  words,  his  oration  is  re- 
plete with  classical  and  historical  allusions,  and  the  thought 
and  language  of  it  bear  witness  to  hours  spent  with  Milton. 

With  much  force,  Pinkney  urged  the  Southern  argument. 
States  are  sovereign,  he  maintained.  If  Missouri  comes  in 
with  the  restriction,  it  comes  in  shorn  of  its  beams — crip- 
pled and  disparaged  beyond  the  original  States — it  is  not 
into  the  original  union  that  it  comes.  The  original  union 
was  a  union  among  equals ;  this  would  be  a  union  between 
giants  and  a  dwarf,  between  power  and  feebleness,  between 
full  -  proportioned  sovereignties  and  a  miserable  image  of 
power.  Under  the  Constitution  you  have  a  right  to  refuse 
to  admit  a  State ;  but  if  you  admit  it,  you  must  do  so  on  full 
and  complete  equality  with  the  other  sovereign  States  of 
the  union ;  you  must  receive  it  into  the  actual  union  and 
recognize  it  as  a  parcener  in  the  common  inheritance,  with- 
out any  other  shackles  than  the  rest  have,  by  the  Constitu- 
tion, submitted  to  bear. 

Meanwhile  the  question  had  assumed  a  new  phase.  Maine, 
recently  separated  from  Massachusetts,  had  applied  for  ad- 
mission as  a  State.  Senator  Thomas,  of  Illinois,  had  intro- 
duced a  proviso  which  prohibited  slavery  in  that  part  of 
the  Louisiana  purchase  which  lay  north  of  the  latitude  of 
36°  30',  except  the  portion  included  within  the  limits  of  the 
proposed  State.  This  line  was  the  southern  boundary  of 
Missouri,  and  the  arrangement  involved  the  admission  of 
Missouri  as  a  slave  State.  This  was  the  famous  Missouri 
Compromise.  It  was  also  understood  that  Maine  should  be 
admitted  without  opposition ;  and  the  parties  to  the  bargain 
carried  it  through  the  Senate  exactly  as  planned.  Greater 
difficulty  was  encountered  in  getting  the  project  through 
the  House.  But  by  the  aid  of  eighteen  Northern  members, 
the  slavery  restriction  was  finally  defeated ;  fifteen  of  them 
voted  openly  against  it,  while  three  absented  themselves.1 


History  of  the  United  States,  Schouler,  vol.  iii.  p.  166. 


OH.!.]  THE  MISSOURI   COMPROMISE  3* 

The  amendment  prohibiting  the  introduction  of  slaves  into 
Missouri  was  struck  out  by  a  majority  of  three,1  and  after 
this  action  it  became  easy  to  pass  the  compromise,  although 
thirty-seven  extreme  Southerners,  under  the  leadership  of 
John  Kandolph,  did  not  give  the  scheme  their  votes.8  This 
epigrammatic  statesman  denounced  the  compromise  as  a 
"  dirty  bargain,"  and  called  the  eighteen  Northern  members 
"dough-faces,"  a  term  abiding  in  our  political  vocabulary 
as  long  as  the  slavery  question  remained  in  politics.* 

Yet  the  compromise  did  not  settle  the  Missouri  question. 
The  constitution  adopted  in  June,  1820,  by  the  convention 
of  Missouri  forbade  her  legislature  to  interfere  with  slavery, 
and  required  it  to  enact  laws  prohibiting  the  immigration  of 
free  colored  persons  into  the  State.  The  House  refused  to 
admit  her  with  these  provisions  in  her  constitution ;  but  in 
the  end  the  matter  was  compromised  through  the  efforts  of 
Clay,  and  Missouri  became  a  State  August  10th,  1821.4 

Thirty-three  years  later,  the  provision  of  this  act  that 
prohibited  slavery  in  the  territory  north  of  36°  30'  was  re- 
pealed; and  the  history  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  was 
then  so  falsely  related  and  its  historical  meaning  so  pervert- 
ed by  the  advocates  of  the  repeal  that  two  facts  need  to  be 
distinctly  and  emphatically  stated. 

First,  the  Missouri  Compromise  was  a  Southern  measure. 
Its  passage  was  considered  at  the  time  as  in  the  interest  of 
the  South,  for  it  gained  immediately  a  slave  State  in  Mis- 
souri, and  by  implication  another  in  Arkansas,  while  the 
settlement  of  the  northern  portion  of  the  territory  was 
looked  upon  as  remote.  The  North  regarded  the  Missouri 
Compromise  as  a  surrender,  and  of  the  fifteen  representatives 


1  The  vote  was  90  to  87. 

9  Schouler,  vol.  iii.  p.  165. 

3  Besides  authorities  already  quoted,  I  have  consulted  Curtis's  Life  of 
Webster,  Harvey's  Reminiscences,  and  Carr's  Missouri. 

*  For  a  full  account  of  this  third  Missouri  controversy,  see  Schouler, 
vol.  iii.  p.  180 ;  Life  of  Clay,  Schurz,  vol.  i.  p.  183 ;  Benton's  Thirty 
Years'  View,  vol.  i.  p.  8. 


38  THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  [On.  L 

who  voted  against  slavery-restriction,  only  three  were  re- 
turned to  Congress.1 

But  the  most  important  bearing  of  this  controversy  is 
that  a  very  large  majority  of  Congress,  made  up  of  Southern 
as  well  as  Northern  senators  and  representatives,  went  on 
record  as  averring  that,  by  a  true  interpretation  of  the  Con- 
stitution, Congress  had  power  to  prohibit  slavery  in  the  ter- 
ritories. Of  greater  significance  even  was  the  discussion  of 
the  question  by  the  President  and  his  cabinet.  Monroe,  a 
Virginian,  before  approving  the  act,  asked  his  advisers 
"whether  Congress  had  a  constitutional  right  to  prohibit 
slavery  in  a  territory."  John  Quincy  Adams,  Crawford  of 
Georgia,  John  C.  Calhoun,  Thompson  of  New  York, 
Meigs  of  Ohio,  and  William  Wirt  of  Maryland,  who  com- 
posed the  President's  cabinet,  "unanimously  agreed  that 
Congress  have  the  power  to  prohibit  slavery  in  the  territo- 
ries." a  We  have  seen  that  one  of  the  first  interpretations 
of  the  Constitution  which  had  the  seal  of  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives was  that  Congress  had  no  power  to  interfere 
with  slavery  in  the  States,  and  it  was  remarked  that  this 
principle  had  the  respect  of  the  North  until  the  outbreak  of 
the  civil  war.  The  historian  would  write  a  grateful  page 
could  he  add  that  the  doctrine  of  1820,  solemnly  agreed  to 
by  representative  men  of  both  sections,  had  received  equal 
respect  from  the  South. 

Impartial  historians  have  affirmed,  with  satisfying  rea- 
sons, that  the  Missouri  Compromise  was  a  political  neces- 
sity in  order  to  preserve  the  fraternal  relations  that  should 


1  The  debate  in  Congress  and  analyses  of  the  votes  fully  support 
these  statements ;  see  also  Benton's  Thirty  Years'  View,  vol.  i.  pp.  5,  8. 
Benton's  Abridgment  of  Debates,  vol.  vi.,  notes  on  pp.  333,  453;  Hildreth, 
vol.  vi.  p.  694.  A  writer  in  the  North  American  Review  for  April,  1820, 
said  that  the  passing  of  the  compromise  was  the  first  just  cause  of  re- 
proach on  America  for  the  toleration  of  slavery. 

9  Diary  of  John  Q.  Adams,  Memoirs,  vol.  v.  p.  5;  Benton's  Thirty 
Years'  View,  vol.  ii.  p.  141 ;  Schouler,  vol.  iii.  p.  167.  On  the  action  of 
Congress,  see  Benton's  Abridgment,  vol.  vi.,  note  on  p.  367. 


CH.  I]  THE  MISSOURI  COMPROMISE  39 

subsist  between  the  members  of  a  federal  union.1  That 
harmony  between  the  two  sections  was  liable  to  be  dis- 
turbed unless  mutual  concessions  were  made,  cannot  be  de- 
nied. "This  momentous  question,"  wrote  Jefferson  from 
Monticello,  "like  a  fire-bell  in  the  night,  awakened  and 
filled  me  with  terror.  I  considered  it  at  once  as  the  knell 
of  the  Union."  *  "  The  words  civil  war  and  disunion,"  wrote 
Clay,  "  are  uttered  almost  without  emotion ;" 3  and  Benton 
says,  "  Compromise  views  prevailed,  and  enabled  the  Union 
to  be  saved." 4 

A  philosopher,  admitting  the  compromise  to  be  a  political 
necessity,  might  nevertheless  have  feared,  if  he  looked  into 
the  seeds  of  time,  that  this  controversy  began  an  irrepressi- 
ble conflict.  He  must  have  noted  that,  since  the  adoption 
of  the  Constitution,  slavery  had  gained  in  power  through 
the  development  of  the  cotton-culture,  the  settlement  of  the 
Gulf  States,  and  the  pecuniary  interest  which  Virginia  and 
Maryland,  having  become  slave-breeding  States,  now  had  in 
the  spread  of  slavery.  The  changed  conditions  in  Virginia 
had  affected  the  opinions  of  the  author  of  the  Declaration 


1  Hildreth,  vol.  vi.  p.  693;   Schouler,  vol.  iii.  p.  171;   Life  of  H.  Clay, 
Schurz,  vol.  i.  p.  199. 

2  Jefferson's  Works,  vol.  vii.  p.  159. 

3  Clay's  Private  Correspondence,  p.  61. 

*  See  also  Senator  Butler's  remarks,  Feb.  24th,  1854.  "  History  tells  us, 
I  know  not  how  truly,  that  the  Union  reeled  under  the  vehemence  of 
that  great  debate." — Seward,  Feb.,  1860.  Niles,  however,  though  earnestly 
in  favor  of  the  compromise,  "  did  not  fear  the  dreadful  things  which 
some  silly  folks  talked  of,"  Niles's  Register,  vol.  xix.  p.  265 ;  see  also 
p.  371.  Seward  said,  in  September,  1860:  "  History  says  that  the  compro- 
mise of  1820  was  necessary  to  save  the  Union  from  disruption.  I  do  not 
dispute  history  nor  debate  the  settled  moral  questions  of  the  past.  I  only 
lament  that  it  was  necessary,  if  indeed  it  was  so.  History  tells  us  that 
the  course  then  adopted  was  wise.  I  do  not  controvert  it.  I  only 
mourn  the  occurrence  of  even  one  case,  most  certainly  the  only  one  that 
ever  did  happen,  in  which  the  way  of  wisdom  -has  failed  to  be  also  the 
way  of  pleasantness  and  the  path  of  peace." — Seward's  Works,  vol.  iv, 
p.  311. 


40  NULLIFICATION  [On.  I 

of  Independence,  for  he  eagerly  grasped  at  Clay's  theory 
that  the  extension  of  slavery  was  far -seeing  humanity. 
Spreading  the  slaves,  he  wrote,  "  over  a  larger  surface  will 
dilute  the  evil  everywhere  and  facilitate  the  means  of  get- 
ting finally  rid  of  it." '  Nor  could  Madison  resist  the  entic- 
ing logic  of  the  rising  statesman ;  beginning  now  to  admire, 
he  came  to  revere  Clay  as  the  hope  of  the  country.1  He 
wrote  to  Monroe  "that  an  uncontrolled  dispersion  of  the 
slaves  now  in  the  United  States  was  not  only  best  for  the 
nation,  but  most  favorable  for  the  slaves  also." 3  It  is  wor- 
thy of  observation  that  Clay  and  Pinkney,  who  began  their 
political  life  with  earnest  efforts  towards  the  abolition  of 
slavery  in  their  respective  States,  now  led  the  opposition  to 
the  restriction  of  slavery ;  and  that  not  a  senator  or  South- 
ern member  of  Congress  had  dared  to  vote  on  the  side  of 
freedom.4 

The  nullification  trouble  of  1832-33,  although  caused  by 
the  enactment  of  a  high  protective  tariff,  must  claim  our 
attention,  for  the  reason  that,  in  this  controversy,  two  con- 
stitutional theories  were  developed,  one  of  which  was  hugged 
to  delusion  by  the  South,  while  the  other  became  the  justifi- 
cation and  incentive  of  the  North  to  draw  the  sword.  The 
obnoxious  tariff,  the  "tariff  of  abominations,"  as  its  oppo- 
nents called  it,  was  enacted  in  1828,  and  established  a  greater 
degree  of  protection  to  manufactures  than  had  any  previous 
revenue  bill.  Calhoun  and  the  people  of  his  State  had  for- 
merly been  in  favor  of  the  protective  principle.  But  by  this 
time  the  belief  had  become  fixed  that,  as  England  was  the 
largest  purchaser  of  cotton,  it  was  for  the  best  interest  of 
South  Carolina  to  have  English  goods  brought  in  free ;  or, 
if  that  were  impracticable,  to  have  duties  imposed  upon 


1  Letter  of  Jefferson  to  Lafayette,  Dec.  26th,  1820,  Works,  vol.  vii.  p.  193. 
8  See  article  of  George  Bancroft  on  Henry  Clay,  Century  Magazine,  vol. 
viii.  p.  479. 

'  Writings  of  James  Madison,  vol.  iii.  p.  169. 
4  Hildreth,  vol.  vi.  p.  697. 


OH.  I.]  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN  41 

them  for  the  sake  of  revenue  only.  The  Palmetto  State  had 
no  manufactures,  nor  could  she  expect  to  build  up  any  with 
her  system  of  labor.  Her  interest  being  to  buy  manufact- 
ured articles  as  cheaply  as  possible,  she  could  have  no  sym- 
pathy with  legislation  that  had  for  its  purpose  the  fostering 
of  home  industries.  The  favorite  idea  was  to  exchange  cot- 
ton for  English  goods,  with  no  restrictions  whatever  on  this 
reciprocal  trade.  For  the  production  of  cotton  slave  labor 
was  then  thought  to  be  necessary ;  and  free  trade  and  negro 
slavery,  therefore,  became  associate  and  fundamental  tenets 
in  the  South  Carolina  political  catechism. 

The  enactment  of  the  tariff  of  1828  created  great  excite- 
ment in  South  Carolina,  and  public  meetings  were  held  all 
over  the  State,  denouncing  the  law  in  unmeasured  terms.1 
Nullification  was  threatened,  and,  while  the  majority  did 
not  seem  ready  to  take  that  step,  the  sentiment  in  favor  of 
nullification  simply  needed  a  leader  to  give  it  shape  and  di- 
rection ;  and  a  leader  was  at  hand  in  the  person  of  the  Yice- 
President,  John  C.  Calhoun.  His  opinions  marked  him  out 
for  the  guide  of  his  native  State.  He  had  hitherto  been  in- 
tensely national  in  his  feelings,  and  in  favor  of  giving  a  lib- 
eral construction  to  the  Constitution.  "  He  is,"  wrote  John 
Quincy  Adams  in  his  diary, "  above  all  sectional  and  factious 
prejudices,  more  than  any  other  statesman  of  this  Union  with 
whom  I  have  ever  acted."  He  was  then  "  a  man  of  fair  and 
candid  mind,  of  enlarged  philosophical  views,  and  of  ardent 
patriotism."8  But,  according  to  the  same  keen  observer, 
that  was  when  Calhoun  felt  sanguine  as  to  his  prospects  for 
the  presidency;3  and  this  hope  had  a  reasonable  basis,  for 
the  Northern  States  in  1824  voted  almost  in  a  body  for  him 
for  Yice-President.  Even  Webster  at  one  time  was  strongly 
inclined  to  support  him  for  the  highest  office  in  the  country. 
In  1828  Calhoun  had  by  no  means  renounced  this  ambition. 


1  See  Niles's  Register,  vols.  xxxiv.  and  xxxv. 
*  Memoirs  of  J.  Q.  Adams,  vol.  v.  p.  361. 
'•Ibid.,voLvi.p.  7.      * 


42  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN  [Cn.  I. 

He  was  candidate  for  Yice-President  on  the  same  ticket  with 
General  Jackson ;  and  for  another  term  he  hoped  to  have  the 
influence  of  the  great  popular  hero  in  favor  of  his  own  ele- 
vation to  the  higher  place.  He  was  now  drawn  in  two  di- 
rections— in  one  by  the  sentiment  of  his  own  State,  in  the 
other  by  his  feeling  of  nationality  and  restless  craving  for 
the  presidency.  He  would  retain  his  support  at  the  North, 
and  yet  he  wished  to  lead  the  public  sentiment  of  South 
Carolina.  He  was  equal  to  the  occasion.  He  did  nothing 
until  after  election,  when  he  had  a  handsome  majority  of 
the  electoral  votes  for  Yice-President ;  but  in  December  the 
legislature  printed  a  paper  which  he  had  prepared  under  the 
title  of  "  The  South  Carolina  Exposition  and  Protest  on  the 
Subject  of  the  Tariff."  This  was  a  mild  document,  and 
merely  a  plain  argument  to  show  the  great  injury  of  a  pro- 
tective tariff  to  the  "  staple  States ;"  and  while  the  right  of 
interposing  the  veto  of  the  State  is  asserted,  no  threat  is 
made,  but,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  deemed  advisable  to  allow 
time  for  further  consideration  and  reflection,  in  the  hope  of 
a  returning  sense  of  justice  on  the  part  of  the  majority.1 
After  this  deliverance  the  excitement  in  South  Carolina 
subsided. 

The  next  act  of  the  drama  took  place  in  the  national 
theatre.  Desiring  to  know  how  the  country  would  receive 
the  bare  doctrine  of  nullification,  Senator  Hayne  was  put 
forward  to  deliver  the  prologue,  but  Calhoun  was  the 
prompter  behind  the  scenes.  Hayne  asserted  that,  in  case 
of  a  palpable  violation  of  the  Constitution  by  the  general 
government,  a  State  may  interpose  its  veto ;  that  this  inter- 
position is  constitutional,  and  the  State  is  to  be  the  sole 
judge  when  the  federal  government  transcends  its  consti- 
tutional limit.  The  senator's  speeches  were  not  remarka- 
ble, and  would  never  have  been  remembered,  had  not  his 
most  labored  effort  given  Webster  the  occasion  for  one  of 
those  rare  bursts  of  eloquence  that  astonish  and  delight  the 


*Por  a  good  abstract  of  this  document,  see  Von  Hoist's  Calhoun,  p.  76. 


CH.  I.J  WEBSTER  AND  CALHOUN  43 

world.  On  the  morning  of  the  day '  when  this  masterpiece 
of  American  oratory  was  delivered,  a  fellow-senator  said  to 
Webster :  "  It  is  a  critical  moment,  and  it  is  time,  it  is  high 
time,  that  the  people  of  this  country  should  know  what  this 
Constitution  w."  "  Then,"  answered  Webster,  "  by  the  bless- 
ing of  Heaven,  they  shall  learn  this  day  before  the  sun  goes 
down  what  I  understand  it  to  be."2  An  abstract  of  this 
speech,  which,  as  a  literary  production,  has  been  compared 
to  the  oration  of  Demosthenes  on  the  Crown,  need  not  de- 
tain us.  Webster's  oration  itself  is  familiar  to  students  of 
American  history,  to  lovers  of  English  literature,  and  to  all 
those  whose  admiration  is  kindled  by  eloquence  in  any 
tongues.  Its  famous  peroration  was  soon  declaimed  from 
every  college  and  school  platform,  and  it  still  retains  its 
place  among  such  pieces  of  oratory  by  virtue  of  its  earnest 
feeling  and  classic  style.  A  large  audience  heard  the  speech, 
but  the  interest  in  the  question  was  so  great  that  the  brill- 
iant crowd  that  gathered  in  the  Senate  chamber  was  but  a 
fraction  of  the  people  over  whom  his  words  were  to  have 
lasting  power.  He  spoke  to  the  whole  country,  and  to  the 
American  people  of  future  ages.  The  principles  he  laid 
down  are  fundamental  truths.  It  took  a  long  war  to  estab- 
lish them ;  but  now,  sealed  in  blood,  they  are  questioned  by 
none  save  Southerners  of  the  past  generation. 

That  the  argument  crushed  nullification  was  public  opin- 
ion in  the  Northern,  Western,  and  many  of  the  Southern 
States.3  It  settled  the  question  for  the  moment,  and  proba- 
bly would  have  done  so  for  a  generation  had  not  there  oc- 
curred about  this  time  a  complete  change  in  the  political 
fortunes  of  Calhoun.  General  Jackson  quarrelled  with  him,4 
and  this  blasted  his  hopes  for  the  presidency.  Adams 
called  him  "  a  drowning  man."  He  no  longer  needed  to 
halt  between  two  opinions.  He  could  abandon  his  national 


1  Jan.  26th,  1830.  2  Life  of  Webster,  Lodge,  p.  178. 

3  Life  of  Webster,  Curtis,  vol.  i.  p.  366. 

4  Life  of  Jackson,  Parton,  vol.  iii.  chap.  xxv. 


44  CALHOUN  AND  NULLIFICATION  [On.  I 

ideas  and  devote  himself  to  the  seeming  interests  of  his 
native  State.  His  talents  were  well  adapted  to  the  work. 
The  South  had  special  interests  based  upon  her  peculiar 
system  of  labor.  The  North  was  growing  much  faster  than 
the  South,  and  the  large  immigration  from  Europe,  just  be- 
ginning, was  being  directed  entirely  to  the  free  States.  The 
South  attracted  none  of  this,  for  the  reason  that  freemen 
would  not  work  with  slaves.  The  stubborn  fact  came  home 
to  every  Southern  politician  that  she  was  losing  political 
power.  A  theory  of  the  Constitution  was  therefore  needed 
which  should  give  the  minority  an  absolute  check  on  the 
majority.  Calhoun  was  by  nature  and  education  as  well 
fitted  to  construct  a  narrow  and  sectional  hypothesis  as 
Webster  was  adapted  to  develop  a  broad  national  one. 
After  1830,  we  look  in  vain  to  Calhoun  for  any  exhibition 
of  that  pervasive  patriotism  that  was  so  distinguishing  a 
feature  in  the  characters  of  Webster,  Clay,  and  Jackson. 

Calhoun  now  bent  all  his  energies  to  the  task,  and  worked 
out  the  fine-spun  theory  of  nullification.  He  elaborated  it 
in  subtle  language,  and  supported  it  by  ingenious,  metaphys- 
ical reasoning.  Brave  in  the  closet  when  developing  his 
theories,  on  the  stage  of  action  he  shrank  from  putting 
them  in  practice.  He  became  a  man  of  one  idea ;  he  lacked 
that  commerce  with  the  world  which  would  have  modified 
the  opinions  he  elaborated  in  the  study.  "  Calhoun  is  mind 
through  and  through,"  said  Lieber ; l  and  Harriet  Martineau 
was  struck  by  his  "  utter  intellectual  solitude,"  by  his  ha- 
rangues at  the  fireside  as  if  he  were  in  the  Senate,  and,  ob- 
serving that  he  was  full  of  his  nullification  doctrine,  wrote, 
"  I  never  saw  any  one  who  so  completely  gave  me  the  idea 
of  possession."*  An  impracticable  theorist,  he  neglected 
the  obvious  application  of  his  country's  Constitution,  of  the 
constitutions  of  the  different  States,  and  of  the  English  Con- 


1  Life  and  Letters  of  Francis  Lieber,  p.  123. 

1  This  was  in  1836.    Retrospect  of  Western  Travel,  quoted  by  Sumner, 
Life  of  Jackson,  p.  284. 


OH.  I.]  CALHOUN  AND  NULLIFICATION  45 

stitution.  In  lieu  thereof,  he  became  such  a  student  of  Ko- 
man  history  and  precedents  that  they  became  unconsciously 
in  his  mind  examples  for  us;  and  he  had  the  Utopian  notion 
that  the  divided  powers  of  the  Roman  Republic  might  be 
ingrafted  on  our  own  system.  One  of  his  admirers  deplores 
that  he  was  not  a  sounder  constitutional  lawyer.1 

In  1832,  Congress  revised  the  tariff.  The  revision,  in  the 
opinion  of  Calhoun,  caused  "  a  small  reduction  in  the  amount 
of  duties,  but  a  reduction  of  such  a  character  that  while  it 
diminished  the  amount  of  burden,  it  distributed  that  burden 
more  unequally  than  even  the  obnoxious  act  of  1828." 2  This 
was  the  year  of  the  presidential  election;  but  the  contest 
between  Jackson  and  Clay  excited  little  interest  in  South 
Carolina,  for  there  the  controversy  turned  on  nullification, 
and  the  struggle  was  for  the  control  of  the  legislature.  As 
it  was  conceded  that  the  nullifiers  would  get  a  majority, 
the  efforts  of  the  Union  men  were  directed  to  prevent  their 
gaming  two  thirds  of  the  ^legislature,  which  was  necessary 
to  authorize  the  calling  of  a  convention.  All  agreed  that 
the  legislature  could  not  declare  a  law  of  the  United  States 
unconstitutional  and  void ;  but  this  imposing  act  needed  a 
convention  with  a  fresh  mandate  from  the  people.  Calhoun 
contributed  powerfully  to  the  success  of  the  nullifiers,  and 
the  election  resulted  in  their  favor.3  A  convention  was 
called,  and  met  in  November.  In  it  the  aristocracy  of  the 
State  was  well  represented  ;  no  abler  body  of  men  ever  came 
together  in  South  Carolina  for  a  political  purpose.4  The 
convention  adopted  the  famous  nullification  ordinance, 
which  declared  that  the  tariff  acts  of  1828  and  1832  were 
"  null,  void  and  no  law,  nor  binding  upon  this  State,  its  offi- 
cers or  citizens";  and  that  no  duties  enjoined  by  those  acts 
should  be  paid  or  permitted  to  be  paid  in  the  State  of  South 


1  Memoir  of  R.  B.  Taney,  Tyler,  pp.  185,  186. 

2  Speech  of  Calhoun  in  the  Senate,  Feb.  15th,  18C- 
«  Life  of  Calhoun,  Jenkins,  p.  243. 

4  Life  of  Jackson,  Parton,  vol.  iii.  p.  457. 


46  THE  NULLIFICATION  ORDINANCE  [Cn.  L 

Carolina  after  the  first  day  of  February,  1833.  This  action 
was  immensely  popular  in  the  state.  The  nullifiers  were 
blatant  and  aggressive,  and  the  respectable  minority  of 
Unionists  were  silent.  Warlike  preparations  began  to  be 
made,  medals  were  struck  bearing  the  impress  "John  C. 
Calhoun,  first  President  of  the  Southern  Confederacy." ' 

Here  was  a  great  opportunity  for  President  Jackson,  and 
he  comprehended  it  fully.  His  honest  and  wise  action  in 
this  trouble  is  his  best  title  to  fame,  and  it  overshadows  his 
arbitrary  acts  and  injudicious  measures.  Apprehending 
nullification  proceedings,  he  had  already  sent  secret  orders 
to  the  collector  at  Charleston,  that  in  case  there  should  be 
a  refusal  to  pay  any  duties,  the  cargo  in  question  should  be 
seized  forthwith,  and  sold  to  pay  the  duty  charges.  He 
had  also  ordered  General  Scott  to  Charleston.  The  Presi- 
dent's answer  to  the  nullification  ordinance  was  a  procla- 
mation, in  which  were  blended  appeal,  argument,  and  warn- 
ing ;  in  all  respects  it  was  a  dignified  state  paper,  worthy 
of  the  country,  whose  good  fortune  it  was  to  have  a  fit  ex- 
ecutive at  so  important  a  crisis.  The  proclamation  began 
by  refuting  the  right  to  annul,  and  the  right  to  secede  as 
claimed  by  the  nullifiers ;  any  such  rights  were  inconsistent 
with  the  main  object  of  the  Constitution,  which  was  "  to 
form  a  more  perfect  union."  It  was  admitted  that  the  tariff 
act  complained  of  did  act  unequally ;  but  so  did  every  reve- 
nue law  that  ever  had  been  or  ever  could  be  passed.  "  To 
say  that  any  state  may  at  pleasure  secede  from  the  Union, 
is  to  say  that  the  United  States  are  not  a  nation."  In  con- 
clusion the  people  of  South  Carolina  were  plainly  warned 
that  in  case  any  forcible  resistance  to  the  laws  was  tried  by 
them,  the  attempt  would  meet  the  united  power  of  the 
other  states.3  Every  important  idea  in  this  proclamation 
may  be  found  in  Webster's  reply  to  Hayne.3  This  shows 


1  Life  of  Jackson,  Parton,  vol.  iii.  p.  459.  *  Ibid.,  p.  468. 

*  Everett's  Memoir  of  Webster,  prefixed  to  Webster's  Works,  p.  cv. 


CH.I.]  THE  NULLIFICATION  ORDINANCE  47 

what  deep  hold  on  General  Jackson's  mind  this  vigorous 
exposition  of  nationality  had  taken. 

The  North  received  the  action  of  the  President  with 
great  enthusiasm,  and  party  lines  were  forgotten  in  the 
patriotic  sentiment  which  it  aroused.  Even  in  all  of  the 
Southern  States  except  three,  his  determination  to  resist  any 
overt  act  was  generally  approved.  But  in  South  Carolina 
the  proclamation  caused  great  irritation.  The  Charleston 
Mercury  called  it  "  a  declaration  of  war  made  by  Andrew 
Jackson  against  the  state  of  South  Carolina."  He  was  com- 
pared as  a  usurper  to  Caesar,  Cromwell,  and  Bonaparte.  The 
editor  hastened  to  add  he  had  none  of  their  genius.  "  If 
the  Republic,"  says  the  fiery  writer,  "  has  found  a  master, 
let  us  not  live  his  subjects."  The  proclamation  was  received 
by  the  legislature  in  session  at  Columbia  with  scorn  and  de- 
fiance. One  member  said,  "  the  principles  thus  avowed  .  .  . 
were  not  less  new  and  startling  than  was  the  mode  of  an- 
nouncing them.  Who  and  whose  are  we  ?  Are  we  Russian 
serfs  or  slaves  of  a  divan  ?"  Another  member  believed  that 
"the  contest  would  end  in  blood.  The  document  of  the 
President  was  none  less  than  the  edict  of  a  tyrant." J  These 
expressions  were  heard  with  undisguised  approval,  and  the 
legislature  asked  the  governor2  to  issue  a  counter  -  procla- 
mation. He  immediately  complied  with  the  request  and 
published  a  pugnacious  manifesto,8  ending  with  the  exhor- 
tation to  resist  at  all  hazards  the  employment  of  military 
force  by  the  President.  The  governor,  moreover,  called 
out  twelve  thousand  volunteers.4 

Meanwhile  Calhoun  had  been  elected  senator,  had  re- 
signed the  vice  -  presidency,  and  was  on  his  way  to  "Wash- 
ington. His  journey  thither,  says  one  of  his  biographers, 
"was  like  that  of  Luther  to  attend  the  diet  at  Worms. 


1  Niles's  Register,  vol.  xliii. 

*  The  governor  was  Hayne,  the  apologist  of  South  Carolina  in  the 
celebrated  debate  with  Webster. 
»  Parton,  vol.  iii.  p.  470.  *  Life  of  Calhoun,  Jenkins,  p.  245. 


48  THE  NULLIFICATION  ORDINANCE  [On.  I 

Out  of  South  Carolina  public  opinion  was  certainly  against 
him ;  and  only  here  and  there  did  he  find  a  good  Freunds- 
berg  to  whisper  in  his  ear,  '  If  you  are  sincere  and  sure  of 
your  cause,  go  on  in  God's  name,  and  fear  nothing.' "  1  Cal- 
houn  was  in  his  seat  in  the  Senate  and  heard  the  message 
from  the  President  asking  additional  powers  for  the  en- 
forcement of  the  laws  made  necessary  by  the  action  of 
South  Carolina  and  her  governor.  A  bill,  called  by  its 
enemies  the  Force  bill,  giving  the  President  the  authority 
he  wished,  was  reported  without  delay.  The  action  of  the 
'President  thoroughly  frightened  Calhoun.3  As  Webster 
said  of  him,  he  had  not  seemed  "  conscious  of  the  direction 
or  the  rapidity  of  his  own  course.  The  current  of  his  opin- 
ion sweeps  him  along  he  knows  not  whither.  To  begin 
with  nullification  with  the  avowed  intent,  nevertheless,  not 
to  proceed  to  secession,  dismemberment,  and  general  rev- 
olution, is  as  if  one  were  to  take  the  plunge  of  Niagara 
and  cry  out  that  he  would  stop  half-way  down."  *  It  was 
brought  to  the  knowledge  of  Calhoun  that  General  Jack- 
son had  determined  to  take  at  once  a  decided  course  with 
him,  and  that  the  matter  of  his  arrest  for  high  treason  was 
under  serious  consideration.4  If  the  logic  of  his  closet 
found  no  place  for  compromise,  the  logic  of  events  demand- 
ed one  very  imperatively.  By  whom  could  it  be  brought 
about  ?  There  was  one  man  whose  wide  influence,  winning 
address,  and  skill  in  party  management  might  effect  a 
compromise ;  that  man  was  Henry  Clay.  To  him,  therefore, 
although  they  had  not  been  on  speaking  terms,  Calhoun 
repaired.6  The  result  of  one  or  more  conferences  and  of 
mediation  by  mutual  friends  was  a  compromise  tariff  bill 


1  Life  of  Calhoun,  Jenkins,  p.  246. 

*  Parton,  vol.  iii.  p.  474 ;  Benton,  vol.  i.  p.  343 ;  Curtis's  Webster,  vol.  i 
p.  443. 

»  Speech,  Feb.  16th,  1833.     Works,  vol.  iii.  p.  460. 
4  Benton,  vol.  i.  p.  343 ;  Parton,  vol.  iii.  p.  474. 

•  Curtis,  vol.  i.  p.  444 ;  also  see  Benton,  vol.  i.  p.  343. 


Cs.I.]  THE  COMPROMISE  TARIFF  49 

which  gradually  reduced  the  tariff  until,  after  a  lapse  of  nine 
years,  all  duties  should  be  diminished  to  the  uniform  rate  of 
twenty  per  cent.1  Clay's  action  is  comprehensible.  The  next 
Congress,  most  of  which  had  already  been  elected,  would 
certainly  be  in  favor  of  radical  revenue  reform,  yet  its  ac- 
tion might  now  be  forestalled  by  a  moderate  decrease.  To 
our  generation  this  argument  is  not  unfamiliar,  as  it  has 
served  a  like  purpose.  To  Clay,  moreover,  occurred  the  ob- 
vious consideration  that  in  nine  years  a  Congress  devoted 
to  protection  might  be  elected  which  could  alter  the  tariff 
at  will.2  Besides,  actuated  by  patriotic  motives,  he  thought 
he  was  serving  his  country  well  in  pouring  oil  into  the  in- 
flamed wounds ;  his  disposition  to  lead  was  mastering,  and 
his  animosity  to  Jackson  was  such  that  he  did  not  wish  the 
President  to  gain  glory  by  the  settlement  of  the  trouble. 
Calhoun's  course  was  a  curious  piece  of  inconsistency.  The 
previous  fall  elections  had  decided  that  a  better  measure  for 
South  Carolina  would  pass  at  the  next  session,  if  the  tariff 
were  now  left  untouched.  He  had  asserted  in  the  strongest 
terms  that  a  tariff  for  protection  was  unconstitutional  and 
an  inveterate  and  dangerous  evil ;  yet  Clay  said  of  the  com- 
promise act,  in  open  Senate,  to  Calhoun' s  face :  "  The  main 
object  of  the  bill  is  not  revenue,  but  protection."  *  Calhoun 
and  the  nullifiers  nevertheless  voted  for  the  bill  in  all  its 
stages,4  and  before  the  close  of  the  session  it  became  a  law. 
The  reason  for  their  action  is  apparent.  Calhoun,  his  fol- 
lowers, and  his  State  were  in  a  predicament.  Unless  some- 
thing should  pass  this  Congress,  they  must  retreat  from  their 


1  Tariff  History  of  United  States,  Taussig,  p.  110.  The  tariff  of  1828 
was  equivalent  to  a  45  per  cent,  ad  valorem  tariff  on  dutiable  articles, 
see  Senate  Report  No.  2130,  51st  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  p.  306. 

1  See  Taussig,  note  p.  112. 

1  Benton,  vol.  i.  p.  321. 

*  "  If  this  course  does  not  prove  that  Calhoun  was  a  '  coward  and  a 
conspirator,'  it  does  prove,  I  think,  that  he  was  not  a  person  of  that  ex- 
alted and  Roman-toga  cast  which  he  set  up  to  be,  and  which  he  enacted 
for  some  years  with  considerable  applause." — Parton,  vol.  iii.  p.  477. 
L— 4 


50  WEBSTER  AND  CALHOUN  [Cn.  1. 

position  ignominiously  or  come  into  collision  with  the  fed- 
eral power,  for  it  was  quite  plain  the  country  would  sus- 
tain the  President.  They  were  therefore  ready  to  grasp  at 
anything  having  the  semblance  of  compromise,  and  Clay's 
project  was  now  the  best  they  could  get.1 

In  the  meantime  the  1st  of  February  had  come,  and  the 
South  Carolina  people  had  decided  to  defer  practical  nulli- 
fication until,  at  any  rate,  after  the  adjournment  of  Con- 
gress. 

Webster  would  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  compromise. 
Clay  had  broached  the  matter  to  him,  but  he  refused  his 
support.  "  It  would,"  he  said,  "  be  yielding  great  princi- 
ples to  faction ;  the  time  has  come  to  test  the  strength  of 
the  Constitution  and  the  government." 3 

A  few  days  after  the  compromise  tariff  was  introduced 
occurred  the  debate  on  the  Force  bill  in  the  Senate  between 
Calhoun  and  Webster,  in  which  the  opposite  theories  of  the 
nature  of  our  government  were  maintained  by  their  re- 
spective champions.  "  The  people  of  Carolina,"  said  Cal- 
houn, "  believe  that  the  Union  is  a  union  of  States  and  not 
of  individuals ;  that  it  was  formed  by  the  States,  and  that 
the  citizens  of  the  several  States  were  bound  to  it  through 
the  acts  of  their  several  States ;  that  each  State  ratified  the 
Constitution  for  itself,  and  that  it  was  only  by  such  ratifica- 
tion of  a  State  that  any  obligation  was  imposed  upon  its 
citizens.  .  .  .  On  this  principle  the  people  of  the  State 
(South  Carolina)  .  .  .  have  declared  by  the  ordinance  that 
the  acts  of  Congress  which  imposed  duties  under  the  au- 
thority to  lay  imposts  were  acts  not  for  revenue,  as  intend- 
ed by  the  Constitution,  but  for  protection,  and  therefore  null 
and  void."  "  The  terms  union,  federal,  united,  all  imply  a 
combination  of  sovereignties,  a  confederation  of  States.  .  .  . 
The  sovereignty  is  in  the  several  States,  and  our  system  is 
a  union  of  twenty-four  sovereign  powers,  under  a  constitu- 


1  Benton,  vol.  i.  p.  342. 

*  For  the  secret  history  of  this  compromise,  see  Benton,  vol.  i.  p.  342. 


CH.L]  WEBSTER   AND  CALHOUN  51 

tional  compact,  and  not  of  a  divided  sovereignty  between 
the  States  severally  and  the  United  States." 

Webster's  answer  was  a  piece  of  close  and  powerful  rea- 
soning,1 but  not  a  magnificent  flight  of  eloquence  like  the 
reply  to  Hayne.  The  speech  contains  hardly  a  classical  al- 
lusion or  historical  illustration.  Plain  facts  are  dealt  with, 
and,  while  the  argument  is  clear  enough  to  commend  itself 
to  an  ordinary  understanding,  the  chain  of  logic  delights 
the  profound  student  of  constitutional  law.  "  His  very  state- 
ment was  argument ;  his  inference  seemed  demonstration." 3 
He  begins  this  speech  of  February  16th,  1833,  by  saying 
that  he  will  endeavor  to  maintain  the  Constitution  in  its 
plain  sense  and  meaning  against  opinions  and  notions  which 
in  his  judgment  threaten  its  subversion.  "  I  admit,  of 
course,"  he  said,  "  that  the  people  may,  if  they  choose,  over- 
throw the  government.  But  then  that  is  revolution.  The 
doctrine  now  contended  for  is,  that,  by  nullification  or  seces- 
sion, the  obligations  and  authority  of  the  government  may 
be  set  aside  or  rejected  without  revolution.  But  that  is 
what  I  deny.  .  .  .  The  Constitution  does  not  provide  for 
events  that  must  be  preceded  by  its  own  destruction.  Se- 
cession, therefore,  since  it  must  bring  these  consequences 
with  it,  is  revolutionary,  and  nullification  is  equally  revolu- 
tionary. ...  I  maintain — 

"  1.  That  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  not  a 
league,  confederacy,  or  compact  between  the  people  of  the 
several  States  in  their  sovereign  capacities,  but  a  government 
proper,  founded  on  the  adoption  of  the  people,  and  creating 
direct  relations  between  itself  and  individuals. 

"  2.  That  no  state  authority  has  power  to  dissolve  these 
relations ;  that  nothing  can  dissolve  them  but  revolution ; 
and  that  consequently  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  seces- 
sion without  revolution.  .  . 


1  See  Curtis,  vol.  i.  p.  451. 

8  Webster's  remark  of  a  noted  New  England  lawyer,  in  his  reply  to 
Hayne. 


52  WEBSTER  AND  CALHOUN  [Ca.  I. 

"  The  truth  is,  and  no  ingenuity  of  argument,  no  subtlety 
of  distinction,  can  evade  it,  that  as  to  certain  purposes  the 
people  of  the  United  States  are  one  people.  .  .  .  Sir,  how 
can  any  man  get  over  the  words  of  the  Constitution  itself  ? 
— <  We,  the  people  of  the  United  States,  do  ordain  and  es- 
tablish this  Constitution.'  .  .  .  "Who  is  to  construe  finally 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States?  ...  I  think  it  is 
clear  that  the  Constitution,  by  express  provision,  by  definite 
and  unequivocal  words,  as  well  as  by  necessary  implication, 
has  constituted  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  the 
appellate  tribunal  in  all  cases  of  a  constitutional  nature 
which  assume  the  shape  of  a  suit  in  law  or  equity."  ' 

These  citations  only  give  Webster's  bare  positions,  but  the 
proofs  are  irrefragable.  The  detailed  arguments  are  no 
longer  necessary  to  carry  conviction ;  the  statements  them- 
selves command  unquestioned  assent ;  but  it  was  not  so 
when  Webster  made  this  speech.  He  had  the  majority  of 
the  South  against  him,  and  not  every  one  at  the  North  was 
prepared  to  adopt  his  strong  national  opinions.8  But  the 
greatest  authority  living,  James  Madison,  in  a  letter  con- 
gratulating Webster  for  his  speech,  agreed  with  the  view  he 
had  taken  of  the  nature  of  the  government  established  by 
the  Constitution.3 

The  justification  alleged  by  the  South  for  her  secession  in 
1861  was  based  on  the  principles  enunciated  by  Calhoun; 
the  cause  was  slavery.  Had  there  been  no  slavery,  the 
Calhoun  theory  of  the  Constitution  would  never  have  been 
propounded,  or,  had  it  been,  it  would  have  been  crushed  be- 
yond resurrection  by  Webster's  speeches  of  1830  and  1833, 


1  Webster's  Works,  vol.  iii.,  speech  entitled  "  The  Constitution  not  a 
Compact  between  Sovereign  States." 

8  See  for  example  Memoirs  of  John  Q.  Adams,  vol.  viii.  p.  526 ;  North 
American  Review,  July,  1833.  For  comment  on  this  debate  from  the 
Southern  point  of  view,  see  War  between  the  States,  A.  H.  Stephens,  vol. 
i.  p.  387. 

8  Memoir  of  Webster  by  Edw.  Everett,  prefixed  to  Works,  vol.  i.  p. 
cvii 


OH.!.]  WILLUM  LLOYD  GARRISON  53 

and  by  the  prompt  action  of  President  Jackson.1  The  South 
could  not  in  1861  justify  her  right  to  revolution,  for  there 
was  no  oppression,  no  invalidation  of  rights.  She  could  not, 
however,  proclaim  to  the  civilized  world  what  was  true,  that 
she  went  to  war  to  extend  slavery.  Her  defence,  therefore, 
is  that  she  made  the  contest  for  her  constitutional  rights, 
and  this  attempted  vindication  is  founded  on  the  Calhoun 
theory.  On  the  other  hand,  the  ideas  of  Webster  waxed 
strong  with  the  years  ;  and  the  Northern  people,  thoroughly 
imbued  with  these  sentiments,  and  holding  them  as  sacred 
truths,  could  not  do  otherwise  than  resist  the  dismember- 
ment of  the  Union. 

A  few  words  will  complete  this  notice  of  the  nullification 
trouble.  Clay's  tariff  act  and  the  Force  bill  were  passed 
almost  simultaneously;  they  were  actually  signed  by  the 
President  on  the  same  day,  and  thus  the  compromise  of  1833 
was  complete.  The  nullification  ordinance  of  South  Caro- 
lina was  repealed  by  the  convention  in  less  than  a  fortnight 
after  the  adjournment  of  Congress  in  March.' 

While  this  controversy  was  going  on,  William  Lloyd  Gar- 
rison began  the  abolitionist  movement  by  the  establishment 
of  the  Liberator  at  Boston,  January  1st,  1831.3  Although 


1  March  21st,  1833,  Jackson  wrote  a  private  letter  to  Buchanan,  who  was 
representing  this  country  at  St.  Petersburg,  in  which  he  said :  The  public 
"  saw  that  although  the  tariff  was  made  the  ostensible  object,  a  separa- 
tion of  the  Confederacy  was  the  real  purpose  of  its  originators  and  sup- 
porters. The  expression  of  public  opinion  elicited  by  the  proclamation 
from  Maine  to  Louisiana  has  so  firmly  repudiated  the  absurd  doctrine  of 
nullification  and  secession,  that  it  is  not  probable  that  we  shall  be  troubled 
with  them  again  shortly."  Life  of  Buchanan,  Curtis,  vol.  i.  p.  185. 

1  The  repeal  is  dated  March  15th.  Statutes  of  South  Carolina,  edited, 
under  the  authority  of  the  legislature,by  Thomas  Cooper,  M.D.,  LL.D.,  vol.  i. 

3  Benjamin  Lundy  had  been  an  apostle  of  abolition  some  years  previ- 
ous to  this,  and  his  influence  was  powerful  in  the  conversion  of  Garrison 
to  the  cause.  There  was,  however,  a  lack  of  coherence  in  Lundy's  ef- 
forts, so  that  for  practical  purposes  the  abolitionist  movement  may  be 
said  to  date  from  the  establishment  of  the  Liberator. 


54  WILLIAM  LLOYD  GARRISON  [On.  I. 

he  had  for  several  years  been  advocating  anti-slavery  ideas, 
his  denunciations  of  slavery  had  attracted  as  little  attention 
at  the  national  capital  as  Paul's  preaching  excited  in  the 
palace  of  the  Caesars.  At  this  time,  in  the  slave  States,  the 
opinion  prevailed  that  slavery  in  the  abstract  was  an  evil. 
Miss  Martineau  conversed  with  many  hundreds  of  persons 
in  the  South  on  the  subject,  but  she  met  only  one  person 
who  altogether  defended  the  institution.  Everybody  justi- 
fied its  present  existence,  but  did  so  on  the  ground  of  the 
impossibility  of  its  abolition, 1  although  forecasts  were  some- 
times given  of  the  position  the  South  would  in  the  future  be 
forced  to  take.  Senator  Hayne,  in  the  celebrated  debate, 
argued  that  slavery  in  the  abstract  was  no  evil ;  but,  in  the 
course  of  the  same  discussion,  Benton  had  addressed  himself 
to  the  people  of  the  North  and  with  truthful  emphasis  as- 
sured them  that  "  slavery  in  the  abstract  had  but  few  advo- 
cates or  defenders  in  the  slave-holding  states." a  The  senti- 
ment at  the  North  was  well  portrayed  by  Webster  in  his 
reply  to  Hayne.  "  The  slavery  of  the  South,"  he  said, "  has 
always  been  regarded  as  a  matter  of  domestic  policy  left 
with  the  States  themselves,  and  with  which  the  federal  gov- 
ernment had  nothing  to  do.  ...  I  regard  domestic  slavery 
as  one  of  the  greatest  evils,  both  moral  and  political.  But 
whether  it  be  a  malady  and  whether  it  be  curable,  and  if  so, 
by  what  means ;  or,  on  the  other  hand,  whether  it  be  the 
vulnus  immedicabile  of  the  social  system,  I  leave  it  to  those 
whose  right  and  duty  it  is  to  inquire  and  decide.  And  this 
I  believe  is,  and  uniformly  has  been,  the  sentiment  of  the 
North."' 

More  than  forty  years  had  now  passed  since  the  establish- 
ment of  the  government.  The  hopes  of  its  founders  had  not 
been  realized,  for  the  number  of  slaves  was  fast  increasing ; 
slavery  had  waxed  strong  and  had  become  a  source  of  great 


1  Society  in  America,  Harriet  Martineau,  vol.  i.  p.  349.    Miss  Martinean 
was  in  the  South  in  1835. 

»  Thirty  Years'  View,  vol.  i.  p.  136.  J  Works,  vol.  iii.  p.  879. 


CH.I.]  WILLIAM  LLOYD  GARRISON  55 

political  and  social  power.  While  optimists,  looking  for  a 
sign  from  heaven  and  a  miracle,  hoped  that,  by  some  occult 
process,  the  slaves  would  be  freed  voluntarily  by  the  next 
generation,  the  abolitionists  believed  that  reform  from  with- 
in the  system  could  not  be  expected,  but  that  its  destruction 
must  come  from  influences  from  the  outside.  The  vital 
point  was  to  convince  the  Northern  people  that  negro  sla- 
very was  a  concern  of  theirs ;  that  as  long  as  it  existed  in 
the  country  without  protest  on  their  part,  they  were  part- 
ners in  the  evil ;  and  although  debarred  from  legislative  in- 
terference with  the  system,  that  was  no  reason  why  they 
should  not  think  right  on  the  subject,  and  bear  testimony 
without  ceasing  against  its  hateful  character. 

The  apostle  who  had  especial  fitness  for  the  work,  and 
who  now  came  forward  to  embody  this  feeling  and  rouse  the 
national  conscience  from  the  stupor  of  great  material  pros- 
perity, was  Garrison.  Adopting  the  Stoic  maxim,  "My 
country  is  the  world,"  he  added  its  corollary,  "  My  country- 
men are  all  mankind,"  and  with  the  change  of  my  to  our  he 
made  it  the  motto  of  the  Liberator.1  In  his  salutatory  ad- 
dress he  said :  "  I  shall  strenuously  contend  for  the  immedi- 
ate enfranchisement  of  our  slave  population.  .  .  .  I  will  be 
as  harsh  as  truth  and  as  uncompromising  as  justice.  ...  I 
am  in  earnest — I  will  not  equivocate— I  will  not  excuse — I 
will  not  retreat  a  single  inch — and  I  will  be  heard." a  In 
one  of  the  succeeding  issues  he  said :  "  Everybody  is  op- 
posed to  slavery,  O,  yes !  there  is  an  abundance  of  philan- 
thropy among  us.  .  .  .  I  take  it  for  granted  slavery  is  a 
crime — a  damning  crime ;  therefore,  my  efforts  shall  be  di- 
rected to  the  exposure  of  those  who  practise  it." '  Soon  the 
Liberator  appeared  with  a  pictorial  heading  that  displayed 


1  Garrison  claimed  originality  for  the  motto.  See  Life  of  W.  L.  Garri- 
son, vol.  i.  p.  219.  Seneca  had  said,  "I  know  that  my  country  is  the 
world;"  and  Marcus  Aurelius  had  written,  "An  Antonine,  my  country  is 
Rome ;  as  a  man,  it  is  the  world."  Quoted  in  Lecky's  History  of  Morals, 
vol.  i.  p.  241. 

'  Life  of  W.  L.  Garrison,  vol.  i.  p.  225.  3  Ibid.,  p.  227. 


56  NAT  TURNER  [Cfl.  L 

the  national  capitol,  floating  from  whose  dome  was  a  flag 
inscribed  "  Liberty ;"  in  the  foreground  is  seen  a  negro, 
flogged  at  a  whipping-post,  and  the  misery  of  a  slave  auc- 
tion.1 This  journal  began  in  poverty ;  but  in  the  course  of 
the  first  year  the  subscription  list  reached  five  hundred.2 
Garrison  wrote  the  leading  articles  and  then  assisted  to  set 
them  up  in  type  and  did  other  work  of  the  printer. 

In  August  of  this  year  (1831)  occurred  the  Nat  Turner  in- 
surrection in  Virginia,  which  seemed  to  many  Southerners  a 
legitimate  fruit  of  the  bold  teaching  of  Garrison,  although 
there  was  indeed  between  the  two  events  no  real  connec- 
tion. But  this  negro  rising  struck  terror  through  the  South 
and  destroyed  calm  reason.  The  leader,  Nat  Turner,  a 
genuine  African  of  exceptional  capacity,  knowing  the  Bible 
by  heart,  prayed  and  preached  to  his  fellow-slaves.  He  told 
them  of  the  voices  he  heard  in  the  air,  of  the  visions  he  saw, 
and  of  his  communion  with  the  Holy  Spirit.  An  eclipse  of 
the  sun  was  a  sign  that  they  must  rise  and  slay  their  enemies 
who  had  deprived  them  of  freedom.  The  massacre  began 
at  night  and  continued  for  forty-eight  hours;  women  and 
children  were  not  spared,  and  before  the  bloody  work  was 
checked  sixty-one  whites  were  victims  of  negro  ferocity. 
The  retribution  was  terrible.  Negroes  were  shot,  hanged, 
tortured,  and  burned  to  death,  and  all  on  whom  suspicion 
lighted  met  a  cruel  fate.  In  Southampton  County,  the 
scene  of  the  insurrection,  there  was  a  reign  of  terror,  and 
alarm  spread  throughout  the  slave  States.* 

This  event,  and  the  thought  that  it  might  be  the  precur- 
sor of  others  of  the  same  kind,  account  for  much  of  the 
Southern  rage  directed  against  Garrison  and  his  crusade. 
Nor,  when  we  reflect  on  the  sparsely  settled  country,  the 

1  Life  of  W.  L.  Garrison,  vol.  i.  p.  232.  s  Ibid.,  p.  480. 

f  An  interesting  account  of  the  massacre,  by  T.  W.  Higginson,  may  be 
found  in  the  Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  viii.  p.  173.  This  article  has  been 
reprinted  in  the  volume  entitled  "  Travellers  and  Outlaws,"  by  T.  W. 
Higginson.  See  also  History  of  the  Negro  Race  in  America,  Williams, 
vol.  ii.  p.  88. 


CH.I.]  SOUTHERN  EXCITEMENT  57 

wide  distance  between  plantations — conditions  that  made  a 
negro  insurrection  possible — and  when  we  consider  what  it 
was  for  planters  to  have  hanging  over  their  heads  the  hor- 
rors of  a  servile  war,  will  it  seem  surprising  that  judicial 
poise  of  temper  was  impossible  when  Southerners  discussed 
the  work  of  Garrison.  They  regarded  it  as  an  incitement 
for  their  slaves  to  revolt.  But  they  did  injustice  to  Garri- 
son, for  Nat  Turner  had  never  seen  a  copy  of  the  Liberator, 
and  the  paper  had  not  a  single  subscriber  south  of  the  Poto- 
mac.1 Nor  did  Garrison  ever  send  a  pamphlet  or  paper  to 
any  slave,  nor  advocate  the  right  of  physical  resistance  on 
the  part  of  the  oppressed.2  He  was  a  non-resistant,  and  did 
not  believe  that  force  should  be  used  to  overturn  legal  au- 
thority, even  when  unjustly  and  oppressively  exercised. 
The  assertion  that  slavery  is  a  damning  crime  is  one  thing ; 
the  actual  incitement  of  slaves  to  insurrection  is  another. 
The  distinction  between  the  two  was  not  appreciated  at  the 
South.  Stringent  laws  were  made  against  the  circulation 
of  the  Liberator,  and  vigilance  committees  sent  their  warn- 
ings to  any  who  were  supposed  to  have  a  part  in  spreading 
its  doctrines.  In  North  Carolina  Garrison  was  indicted  for 
a  felony,  and  the  legislature  of  Georgia  offered  a  reward 
of  five  thousand  dollars  for  the  arrest  and  conviction  of  the 
editor  or  publisher.3  One  voice  went  abroad  from  public 
officials,  popular  meetings,  and  from  the  press  of  the  South, 
demanding  that  the  governor  of  Massachusetts  or  the 
mayor  of  Boston  should  suppress  the  " infernal  Liberator" 
The  people  of  Virginia  had  often  struggled  to  free  them- 
selves from  the  coils  of  slavery,  and  the  Nat  Turner  insur- 
rection furnished  the  occasion  for  another  attempt.  At  the 
following  session  of  the  Legislature  a  proposition  was  made 
to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  some  plan  of  gradual  eman- 
cipation. In  the  debate  that  took  place  on  the  subject,  the 
evil  of  slavery  was  characterized  in  terms  as  strong  as  an 


1  Life  of  Garrison,  vol.  i.  pp.  239,  251.  a  Ibid,,  p.  489. 

s  Ibid.,  pp.  241,  247. 


58  SOUTHERN  EXCITEMENT  [Cn.  I 

abolitionist  could  have  used.  The  alarm  excited  all  over 
the  South  by  the  negro  rising  in  Southampton  County  was 
not,  one  member  explained,  from  the  fear  of  Nat  Turner, 
but  it  was  on  account  of  "  the  suspicion  eternally  attached 
to  the  slave  himself — a  suspicion  that  a  Nat  Turner  might 
be  in  every  family,  that  the  same  bloody  deed  might  be 
acted  over  at  any  time,  and  in  any  place ;  that  the  materials 
for  it  were  spread  through  the  land,  and  were  always  ready 
for  a  like  explosion." ' 

But  a  majority  of  the  House  of  Kepresentatives,  in  which 
the  project  was  discussed,  could  not  be  had  for  ordering  an 
inquiry,  and  the  further  consideration  of  the  subject  was  in- 
definitely postponed.  It  has  sometimes  been  asserted  that 
had  not  the  abolitionist  agitation  begun,  this  Virginia  move- 
ment would  have  resulted  in  the  gradual  emancipation  of 
slaves  in  that  state ;  but  there  is,  in  truth,  no  reason  for 
thinking  that  anything  more  would  have  come  of  it  than 
from  previous  abortive  attempts  in  the  same  direction.  On 
many  pages  of  Virginia  history  may  one  read  of  noble  ef- 
forts by  noble  men  towards  freeing  their  State  from  slavery. 
But  the  story  of  the  end  is  a  repeated  tale ;  the  seeds  sown 
fell  among  thorns,  and  the  thorns  sprung  up  and  choked 
them. 

Meanwhile  Garrison  and  his  little  band  continued  the  up- 
hill work  of  proselyting  at  the  North,  and  especially  in  Bos- 
ton. Merchants,  manufacturers,  and  capitalists  were  against 
the  movement,  for  trade  with  the  South  was  important,  and 
they  regarded  the  propagation  of  abolition  sentiments  as  in- 
jurious to  the  commercial  interests  of  Boston.  Good  society 
turned  the  back  upon  the  abolitionists.  Garrison  had  no 
college  education  to  recommend  him  to  an  aristocracy  based 
partly  upon  wealth  and  partly  upon  culture.2  The  churches 
were  bitterly  opposed  to  the  movement.  Oliver  Johnson, 


1  For  an  abstract  of  this  debate,  see  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power, 
Wilson,  vol.  i.  chap,  xiv. 
1  Life  of  Garrison,  vol.  i.  p.  515. 


CH.  I.]  AMERICAN  ANTI-SLAVERY  SOCIETY  59 

one  of  the  early  disciples  of  Garrison,  relates  that  several 
times  his  efforts  were  in  vain  to  persuade  some  one  among 
a  dozen  white  clergymen  of  Boston  to  open  an  anti-slavery 
meeting  with  prayer,  and  he  was  in  each  case  forced  atiast  to 
accept  the  services  of  a  negro  preacher  from  "  Negro  Hill." 1 
The  position  of  the  church  was  well  expressed  by  a  noted 
clergyman,  who  attributed  the  sin  of  slavery  to  a  past  gen- 
eration, and  assigned  the  duty  of  emancipation  to  future 
generations.2  The  abolitionists,  however,  gradually  gained 
ground.  The  year  1833  was  for  them  one  of  grateful  mem- 
ory. Then,  at  Philadelphia,  the  American  Anti-slavery  So- 
ciety was  organized  by  delegates  who  made  up  in  enthu- 
siasm what  they  lacked  in  numbers.3  The  Declaration  of 
Sentiments,  drawn  up  by  Garrison,  was  a  paper  worthy  of 
the  earnest  and  intelligent  people  who  were  its  signers.  It 
referred  to  the  immortal  Declaration  adopted  in  the  same 
city  fifty-seven  years  before,  and,  as  the  strongest  abolition 
argument  that  could  be  made,  quoted  the  phrase  "  that  all 
men  are  created  equal ;  that  they  are  endowed  by  their  Cre- 
ator with  certain  inalienable  rights ;  that  among  these  are 
life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness."  It  denounced 
slavery  in  vigorous  terms,  yet  conceded  that  Congress  had 
no  right  to  interfere  with  it  in  the  States ;  and  while  con- 
demning the  employment  of  material  force  in  any  way  to 
promote  abolition,  the  signers  pledged  themselves  to  use 
moral  means,  so  far  as  lay  in  their  power,  to  overthrow  the 
execrable  system  of  slavery.  This  was  not  an  inflammatory 
and  seditious  appeal ;  the  delegates  were  men  of  good  char- 
acter, pure  morals,  and  were  law-abiding  citizens  ;  yet  it  was 
necessary  for  the  police  to  guard  the  convention  hall  against 
threatened  mob  violence.  The  meeting  was  regarded  by  all 
Southern  people,  and  by  nearly  all  at  the  North,  in  much 


1  Garrison  and  his  Times,  Johnson,  p.  71. 
1  Ibid.,  p.  109. 

3  The  number  was  between  fifty  and  sixty,  mostly  young  men.    Life  of 
Garrison,  vol.  i.  p.  397. 


60  SOUTHERN  SENTIMENT  [Cn.  L 

the  same  way  as  we  should  now  look  upon  an  assemblage 
of  anarchists.1 

This  year  (1833)  is  also  noteworthy  as  furnishing  a  fresh 
argument  for  the  abolitionists.  The  British  Parliament, 
influenced  by  a  long  course  of  agitation,  emancipated  the 
negro  slaves  in  the  West  Indian  colonies,  so  that  hencefor- 
ward freedom  was  the  rule  in  all  the  vast  colonial  posses- 
sions of  England,  as  it  had  been  for  years  in  the  parent 
state. 

At  the  same  time,  ambitious  Southern  politicians  began 
to  turn  to  their  own  advantage  the  anti-slavery  agitation 
at  the  North.  This  did  not  escape  the  keen  observation  of 
Madison,  who,  though  well  stricken  in  years,  was  able  to  de- 
tect, from  his  country  retreat,  the  reason  of  various  moves 
in  the  political  sphere  of  his  native  state,  which  had  for 
their  aim  to  make  a  unit  of  Southern  opinion  on  the  slavery 
question.  "  It  is  painful,"  wrote  Madison  to  Clay  in  June, 
1833,  "  to  observe  the  unceasing  efforts  to  alarm  the  South 
by  imputations  against  the  North  of  unconstitutional  de- 
signs on  the  subject  of  the  slaves."8  In  a  letter  written 
more  than  a  year  later,  he  said  that  one  could  see  from  the 
Virginia  newspapers  and  the  proceedings  of  public  meet- 
ings that  aspiring  popular  leaders  were  inculcating  the  "  im- 
pression of  a  permanent  incompatibility  of  interests  between 
the  South  and  the  North." 3 

Excitement  about  the  abolition  movement  characterized 
the  year  1835.  Numerous  public  meetings  and  the  press  of 
the  South  demanded  almost  with  one  voice  that  the  aboli- 
tionists must  be  put  down  or  they  would  destroy  the  Union. 
A  suspension  of  commercial  intercourse  with  the  North  was 


1  A  similar  comparison  suggested  itself  to  Ampere  in  1851 :  "LesEtats 
a  esclaves,"  he  writes,  "  d6fendent  avec  passion,  avec  fureur,  ce  qui  est  a 
leurs  yeux  le  droit  de  propriety  :  les  abolitionistes  sont  pour  eux  ce  que 
sont  les  communistes  pour  les  proprietaires  fra^ais." — Promenade  en 
Amerique,  vol.  i.  p.  48. 

9  Madison's  Works,  vol.  iv.  p.  301.  3  Ibid.,  p.  358. 


C*.  I.]  MOB  VIOLENCE  $1 

even  suggested.1  The  Charleston  post-office  was  forcibly 
entered  and  a  large  number  of  tracts  and  papers  sent  there 
by  the  American  Anti-slavery  Society  were  seized ;  the  next 
night  these  papers  and  effigies  of  Garrison  and  other  aboli- 
tionists were  burned  in  the  presence  of  a  large  number  of 
spectators.3  On  a  false  alarm  of  a  projected  slave  rising  in 
Mississippi,  several  white  men  and  negroes  were  hanged  by 
vigilance  committees.3  The  wrath  of  the  Southern  people 
against  the  abolitionists  was  reflected  at  the  North,  and  the 
feeling  grew  that  the  imputation  of  abolition  ideas  to  the 
whole  Northern  community  must  be  repelled.  As  the  Lib- 
erator could  not  be  suppressed,  nor  anti-slavery  meetings 
prohibited  by  law,  recourse  was  had  to  mob  violence.  At- 
tacks upon  abolitionists  had  previously  been  common,  and 
this  sort  of  warfare  culminated  in  the  year  1835.  A  fero- 
cious anti-negro  riot  took  place  at  Philadelphia.4  Rev.  Sam- 
uel May,  a  devoted  abolitionist  and  adherent  of  Garrison, 
was  mobbed  at  Haverhill,  Mass.,  the  home  of  Whittier,  and 
five  times  afterwards  at  different  places  in  Vermont.6  A 
disgraceful  anti-slavery  riot  occurred  at  Utica,  N.  Y.  In 
Boston,  on  the  same  day,  a  mob,  variously  estimated  at 
from  two  thousand  to  five  thousand,  including  many  gentle- 
men of  property  and  influence,6  broke  up  a  meeting  of  the 
Boston  Female  Anti-slavery  Society.  Garrison,  one  of  the 
men  against  whom  the  mob  directed  its  fury,7  had  escaped 
from  the  hall  in  which  the  ladies  were  assembled,  but  he 
was  seized  and  dragged  bareheaded  through  the  streets, 


1  Niles's  Register,  vol.  xlix.  pp.  73,  77. 

'  Life  of  Garrison,  vol.  i.  p.  485 ;  Niles's  Register,  vol.  xlviii.  p.  403. 

•  Niles,  vol.  xlix.  p.  118. 

*  Life  of  Garrison,  vol.  i.  p.  485. 

6  Recollections  of  the  Anti-slavery  Conflict,  May,  p.  152. 

6  Life  of  Garrison,  vol.  ii.  p.  11.    It  was  one  of  the  surprises  of  Harriet 
Martineau  to  learn  that  the  mob  was  composed  of  gentlemen  dressed  in 
fine  broadcloth.     Society  in  America,  vol.  i.  p.  129. 

7  One  great  incitement  to  the  mob  was  the  supposed  presence  of  George 
Thompson,  a  zealous  and  imprudent  anti-slavery  agitator  from  England. 


62  THE  INFLUENCE  OF  GARRISON  [On.  I. 

subjected  to  indignity  and  insult,  and  his  life  was  threatened. 
The  mayor  and  police  finally  rescued  him  from  the  hands 
of  the  rioters,  and  put  him  in  jail  as  a  protection  against 
further  violence. 

Yet  the  work  of  converting  and  creating  Northern  senti- 
ment went  on.  In  spite  of  misrepresentation,  obloquy,  and 
derision,  the  abolitionists  continued  to  apply  moral  ideas 
and  Christian  principles  to  the  institution  of  slavery.  The 
teachings  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles  actuated  this  crusade,1 
and  its  latent  power  was  great.  If  one  looks  for  its  results 
merely  to  the  numbers  of  congressmen  chosen  by  the  aboli- 
tionists, to  the  vote  received  by  presidential  candidates  dis- 
tinctively theirs,  or  even  to  the  number  of  members  enrollec} 
in  the  anti-slavery  societies,  only  a  faint  idea  of  the  force  of 
the  movement  will  be  gained.  The  influence  of  the  Liberator 
cannot  be  measured  by  its  subscribers,  any  more  than  the 
French  revolutionists  of  1789  can  be  reckoned  as  of  no 
greater  number  than  the  readers  of  "  The  Social  Contract." 
If  Eousseau  had  never  lived,  said  Napoleon,  there  would 
have  been  no  French  Kevolution.  It  would  be  historical 
dogmatism  to  say  that  if  Garrison  had  not  lived,  the  Eepub- 
licans  would  not  have  succeeded  in  1860.  But  if  we  wish  to 
estimate  correctly  the  influence  of  Garrison  and  his  disciples, 
we  must  not  stop  with  the  enumeration  of  their  avowed  ad- 
herents. "We  must  bear  in  mind  the  impelling  power  of 
their  positive  dogmas,  and  of  their  never-ceasing  inculcation 
on  those  who  were  already  voters  and  on  thinking  youths 
who  were  to  become  voters,  and  who,  in  their  turn,  pre- 
vailed upon  others.  We  must  picture  to  ourselves  this  proc- 
ess of  argument,  of  discussion,  of  persuasion,  going  on  for 
twenty-five  years,  with  an  ever-increasing  momentum,  and 
we  cannot  resist  the  conviction  that  this  anti-slavery  agita- 
tion  had  its  part,  and  a  great  part  too,  in  the  first  election 


1  The  anti-slavery  agitation  is  "  probably  the  last  great  reform  that  the 
world  is  likely  to  see  based  upon  the  Bible  and  carried  out  with  a  milieu* 
nial  fervor." — Life  of  Garrison,  vol.  i.  p.  xiii. 


CH.  I.]  THE  INFLUENCE  OF  GARRISON  63 

of  Lincoln.  It  was  due  to  Garrison  and  his  associates  that 
slavery  became  a  topic  of  discussion  at  every  Northern  fire- 
side. Those  who  had  heard  the  new  doctrine  gladly  tried 
to  convince  their  family  and  their  friends ;  those  who  were 
but  half  convinced  wished  to  vanquish  their  doubts  or  have 
put  to  rest  the  rising  suspicion  that  they  were  partners  in  a 
great  wrong ;  those  who  stubbornly  refused  to  listen  could 
not  fail  to  feel  that  a  new  force  had  made  its  appearance, 
with  which  a  reckoning  must  be  made.  Slavery  could  not 
bear  examination.  To  describe  it  was  to  condemn  it.  There 
was  a  certain  fitness,  therefore,  in  the  demand  of  the  South- 
erners that  the  discussion  of  slavery  in  any  shape  should  be 
no  longer  permitted  at  the  North. 

But  in  what  a  state  of  turpitude  the  North  would  have 
been  if  it  had  not  bred  abolitionists!  If  the  abolitionists 
had  not  prepared  the  way,  how  would  the  political  rising  of 
1854-60  against  the  slave  power  have  been  possible  ?  It  is 
true  that  many  ardent  Republicans  who  voted  for  Lincoln 
would  have  repudiated  the  notion  that  they  were  in  any 
way  influenced  by  the  arguments  of  Garrison  and  his  asso- 
ciates. And  it  is  equally  true  that  in  1835  the  average 
Northern  man  satisfied  himself  by  thinking  slavery  in  the 
abstract  a  great  evil,  but  that,  as  it  existed  in  the  South,  it 
was  none  of  his  concern ;  he  thought  that  "  God  hath  made 
of  one  blood  all  nations  of  men"  a  good  doctrine  to  be 
preached  on  Sunday,  and  "  all  men  are  created  equal "  a  fit 
principle  to  be  proclaimed  on  the  Fourth  of  July ;  but  he 
did  not  believe  that  these  sentiments  should  be  applied  to 
the  social  condition  of  the  South.  But  that  was  exactly  the 
ground  on  which  the  abolitionists  planted  themselves,  and, 
by  stirring  the  national  conscience,  they  made  possible  the 
formation  of  a  political  party  whose  cardinal  principle  was 
opposition  to  the  extension  of  slavery,  and  whose  reason  for 
existence  lay  in  the  belief  of  its  adherents  that  slavery  in 
the  South  was  wrong. 

A  shining  example  of  the  change  that  was  beginning  to 
be  wrought  in  Northern  sentiment  is  seen  in  Dr.  Channing. 


64  CHANNING  ON  SLAVERY  [Cn.  I. 

In  1828  he  wrote  to  Webster  deprecating  any  agitation  of 
the  question.  Our  Southern  brethren,  he  said,  would  "  inter- 
pret every  word  from  this  region  on  the  subject  of  slavery 
as  an  expression  of  hostility." '  He  feared  the  agitation 
might  harm  the  Union,  and  he  loved  the  Union  as  Webster 
loved  it.  In  1835  he  published  a  book  on  "  Slavery,"  which, 
with  the  exception  of  the  Liberator,  is  the  most  remarkable 
contribution  of  this  decade  to  the  cause  of  the  abolitionists. 
The  appearance  of  Dr.  Channing  in  this  arena  was  for  him 
a  notable  sacrifice.  The  effective  work  of  his  life  had  been 
done.  He  had  led  to  triumph  a  liberal  religious  movement, 
and  he  had  a  right  to  seek  repose  and  shrink  from  another 
contest.  He  was  now  the  pastor  of  a  devoted  and  cultivated 
society  in  Boston,  and  the  most  eminent  preacher  in  Ameri- 
ca.11 Emerson  wrote  that  his  sermons  were  sublime,3  and 
James  Freeman  Clarke  says  that  Channing  spoke  "  with  the 
tongues  of  men  and  of  angels."4  He  was  one  of  the  few 
Americans  who  had  a  literary  reputation  in  Europe ;  and, 
while  not  as  extensive  as  that  of  Washington  Irving,  it  was, 
in  the  opinion  of  Ticknor,  "  almost  as  much  so,  and  deserv- 
edly higher." 6  A  scholar  and  a  student,  he  had  projected 
a  work  on  "  Man,"  for  which  he  had  been  gathering  mate- 
rials many  years.  The  purpose  of  the  book  was  an  exposi- 
tion of  religion  and  philosophy,  which  he  thought  the  world 
needed,  and  he  expected  it  would  be  his  literary  monument. 


1  Webster's  Works,  vol.  v.  p.  366. 

2  John  Quincy  Adams,  on  the  death  of  Channing,  wrote  in  his  diary : 
"  Dr.  Channing  never  flinched  or  quailed  before  the  enemy.     But  he  was 
deserted  by  many  of  his  followers,  and  lost  so  many  of  his  parishioners 
that  he  had  yielded  to  his  colleague,  E.  S.  Gannett,  the  whole  care  of  his 
pastoral  office,  giving  up  all  claim  to  salary  and  reserving  only  the  privi- 
lege of  occasionally  preaching  to  them  at  his  convenience.     The  loss  of 
Dr.  Channing  to  the  anti-slavery  cause  is  irreparable." — Memoirs  of  J.  Q 
Adams,  vol.  xi.  p.  258. 

8  Memoir  of  R.  W.  Emerson,  Cabot,  vol.  i.  p.  105. 

*  Memorial  and  Biographical  Sketches,  p.  159. 

•  Life  of  George  Ticknor,  vol.  i.  p.  479. 


CH.  I.]  CHANNING  ON  SLAVERY  65 

The  scholar  who  puts  aside  his  cherished  investigation  to 
engage  in  a  practical  work  of  duty  that  is  foreign  to  his 
taste  is  an  unobtrusive  martyr ;  he  deserves  a  place  among 
those  who  have  given  up  their  dearest  hopes  for  the  real  or 
fancied  good  of  humanity.  Dr.  Channing  made  such  a  sacri- 
fice when  he  gave  the  services  and  the  high  influence  of  his 
pen  to  the  anti-slavery  cause. 

With  a  disposition  to  look  upon  the  bright  side  of  hu- 
man nature,  he  was  loath  to  admit  to  himself  the  grave- 
ness  of  the  evil  that  afflicted  the  country  he  loved  so  well. 
His  conversion  was  slow,  but  a  winter  spent  in  the  West 
Indies  revived  his  youthful  antipathy  to  slavery.  The 
influence  of  the  Liberator,  although  the  harsh  manner  of 
Garrison  was  a  shock  to  his  delicate  nature,  completed 
the  change  in  his  ideas  that  his  own  observations  had  be- 
gun. The  final  bent  was  given  by  a  conversation  with 
the  Rev.  Samuel  J.  May,  a  Garrison  abolitionist  and  a  Uni- 
tarian minister,  who  looked  up  to  Channing  as  his  spiritual 
leader.1 

Dr.  Channing's  work  on  "  Slavery"  attracted  wide  atten- 
tion, and  might  be  found  on  many  a  parlor-table  from  which 
the  Liberator  was  excluded  with  scorn.  Many  Southerners 
and  nearly  every  prominent  man  in  public  life  read  it.  A 
slave-holder  in  Congress  declared  that  the  slaves  in  the  South 
knew  that  Dr.  Channing  had  written  a  book  on  their  behalf, 
and  it  was  not  long  before  the  Southern  aristocracy  and 
their  Northern  partisans  considered  Channing  a  more  dan- 
gerous man  than  even  Garrison. 

The  justification  of  this  little  book  of  one  hundred  and 
fifty-nine  pages  may  be  summed  up  in  the  averment  that 
"  Slavery  ought  to  be  discussed.  We  ought  to  think,  feel, 
speak,  and  write  about  it.  But  whatever  we  do  in  regard 
to  it  should  be  done  with  a  deep  feeling  of  responsibility, 
and  so  done  as  not  to  put  in  jeopardy  the  peace  of  the  slave- 


1  For  this  conversation,  see  Anti-slavery  Conflict,  May,  p.  173 ;  Life  of 
Channing,  p.  529. 
L— 5 


66  CHANNING  ON  SLAVERY  [On.  1 

holding  states."  The  argument  is  an  elaboration  of  the 
thesis :  No  "  right  of  man  in  man  can  exist.  A  human  be- 
ing cannot  be  justly  owned ;"  and  the  duty  then  incumbent 
upon  Northern  people  is  thus  formulated :  "  Our  proper  and 
only  means  of  action  is  to  spread  the  truth  on  the  subject 
of  slavery." 

If  slavery  were  wrong,  the  only  valid  objection  to  dis- 
cussing it  lay  in  the  possibility  that  the  agitation  might  ex- 
cite servile  insurrection.  This  argument  appears  and  reap- 
pears in  Congress,  in  the  press  and  the  pulpit  of  the  time. 
Dr.  Channing  addressed  himself  with  success  to  the  refuta- 
tion of  this  reasoning,  and  the  course  of  events  proved  that 
his  position  was  well  taken.  From  Nat  Turner's  to  John 
Brown's,  a  period  of  twenty-eight  years,  no  slave  insurrection 
gathered  to  a  head ;  and  both  of  these  were,  in  their  imme- 
diate physical  results,  insignificant.  The  first  revolt  was,  as 
we  have  seen,  contemporaneous  with  the  inception  of  the 
abolition  movement.  The  John  Brown  invasion,  in  no  way  a 
rising  of  slaves,  occurred  after  the  moral  agitation  had  ac- 
complished its  work,  and  when  the  cause  had  been  consigned 
to  a  political  party  that  brought  to  a  successful  issue  the 
movement  begun  by  the  moral  sentiment  of  the  country.  A 
potent  influence  of  Dr.  Channing's  book  lay  in  the  fact  that 
he  had  little  sympathy  with  Garrison's  methods,  and  repre- 
sented a  different  range  of  sentiment ;  and  he  was  appar- 
ently not  aware  how  much  he  had  been  influenced  by  the 
abolitionist  agitation.  Channing,  like  Emerson,  would  never 
have  initiated  a  movement  of  this  kind.  They  were  apostles 
of  an  advanced  religion  and  philosophy,  but  they  loved  the 
tranquillity  of  culture,  and  could  not  play  the  part  of  vio- 
lent iconoclasts.  They  were  optimists ;  they  were  not  ag- 
gressive natures ;  they  were  not  the  sort  of  men  to  whom 
would  come,  as  a  call  from  on  high,  the  burning  conviction 
that  the  times  were  out  of  joint,  and  they  must  go  to  work 
and  set  them  right.  Emerson,  with  the  abolitionists  in  his 
mind,  said  that  "  the  professed  philanthropists  are  an  alto- 
gether odious  set  of  people,  whom  one  would  shun  as  the 


CH.  I.]  THE  ABOLITIONISTS  AND   CONGRESS  67 

worst  of  bores  and  canters."  '  But  his  respect  for  Garrison 
grew  with  his  knowledge,  and  he  wittily  said  of  this  chief 
agitator  and  of  the  men  who  threw  themselves  unhesitat- 
ingly into  the  contest,  that  "  they  might  be  wrong-headed, 
but  they  were  wrong-headed  in  the  right  direction." 2 

We  must  now  turn  our  eyes  towards  the  national  cap- 
ital. There  the  abolitionists  had  made  themselves  felt. 
Since  the  settlement  of  the  Missouri  controversy  the  sub- 
ject of  slavery  had  hardly  been  alluded  to  in  Congress,  but 
in  1835  it  was  brought  before  that  body  by  the  first  refer- 
ence made  in  a  President's  message  to  abolitionism.  Gen- 
eral Jackson  called  attention  to  the  transmission  through 
the  mails  of  "inflammatory  appeals  addressed  to  the  pas- 
sions of  the  slaves,  in  prints  and  in  various  sorts  of  publi- 
cations, calculated  to  stimulate  them  to  insurrection,  and 
to  produce  all  the  horrors  of  a  servile  war ;"  and  he  sug- 
gested the  propriety  of  passing  such  a  law  as  would  pro- 
hibit, under  severe  penalties,  this  practice.  The  result  of 
the  consideration  of  this  part  of  the  message  was  a  bill, 
reported  by  Calhoun  from  a  special  committee  of  which 
he  had  been  made  the  chairman,  subjecting  to  penalties 
any  postmaster  who  should  knowingly  receive  and  put 
into  the  mail  any  publication  or  picture  touching  the  sub- 
ject of  slavery,  to  go  into  a  state  or  territory  in  which  the 
circulation  of  such  documents  should  be  forbidden  by  the 
state  or  territorial  laws.  Benton,  in  a  speech  in  the  Senate, 
described  a  print  that  had  been  sent  to  him,  and  which  was 
a  sample  of  what  were  in  circulation.  It  represented  "  a 
large  and  spreading  tree  of  liberty,  beneath  whose  ample 
shade  a  slave-owner  was  at  one  time  luxuriously  reposing, 
with  slaves  fanning  him ;  at  another,  carried  forth  in  a 
palanquin,  to  view  the  half -naked  laborers  in  the  cotton- 
field,  whom  drivers  with  whips  were  scourging  to  the 
task." '  Calhoun  supported  his  bill  by  the  argument  that 


1  Memoir  of  R.  W.  Emerson,  Cabot,  vol.  ii.  p.  427. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  430.  •  Thirty  Years'  View,  Benton,  vol.  i.  p.  577. 


68  SOUTHERN  SENTIMENT  [Cn.  I. 

had  now  become  usual  with  him :  If  Congress  would  not 
do  what  it  lawfully  could  to  stop  the  work  of  the  aboli- 
tionists, the  Union  would  be  in  danger,  and  the  South 
would  have  recourse  to  nullification,  which,  he  asserted, 
had  been  carried  into  practice  successfully  on  a  recent  oc- 
casion by  the  gallant  state  he  had  the  honor  to  represent. 
Clay  opposed  the  bill,  and  Webster  made  a  strong  argu- 
ment against  it,  taking  the  broad  ground  that  it  would 
conflict  with  the  liberty  of  the  press.  After  three  tie 
votes  in  different  parliamentary  stages  of  the  bill,  it  was 
defeated  by  a  majority  of  six. 

The  important  consideration  now  to  be  observed  is  the 
great  change  in  Southern  sentiment  regarding  slavery. 
Silent  and  unseen  forces  had  been  at  work  revolutionizing 
public  opinion,1  and  their  result  was  now  manifest.  Gov- 
ernor McDuffie,  in  his  message  to  the  South  Carolina  leg- 
islature, said,  "  Domestic  slavery  is  the  corner-stone  of  our 
republican  edifice;"  and  Calhoun,  two  years  later,  averred 
in  open  Senate  that  slavery  is  a  good,  a  positive  good.2 
William  Gilmore  Simms,  the  poet  and  novelist,  whom  the 
Southern  people  delighted  to  read  and  honor,  could  not  in 
1852  felicitate  himself  too  highly  that  he  had  fifteen  years 
previously  been  one  of  the  first  to  advocate  that  slavery  was 
"  a  great  good  and  blessing." 3  At  the  birth  of  the  nation, 
as  we  have  seen,  the  difference  of  opinion  on  the  subject 
between  the  North  and  the  South  was  not  great,  but  opin- 
ions had  moved  on  divergent  lines.  If  we  seek  to  appor- 
tion the  blame  for  this  increasing  irritation,  we  have  an 
impartial  witness,  Senator  Thomas  Benton,  of  Missouri. 
A  student  of  books,  but  pedantic,  ostentatious,  and  inapt 
in  the  use  of  learning,  Benton  was  still  a  profound  observer 
of  men,  an  honest  man,  and  a  loyal  citizen.  He  loved  the 


1  See  Memoirs  of  J.  Q.  Adams,  vol.  v.  p.  10  el  seq. 
8  Calhoun's  Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  631. 

»  Pro-slavery  Argument,  Charleston,  Walker,  Richards  &  Co.,  1852,  p. 
178. 


CH.  I.]  JOHN  QUINCT  ADAMS  69 

Union,  he  hated  nullifiers  and  abolitionists.  He  approved 
of  the  Northern  mobs  that  had  "  silenced  the  gabbling 
tongues  of  female  dupes  and  dispersed  the  assemblages, 
whether  fanatical,  visionary,  or  incendiary." '  He  was 
withal  a  slave  -  holder,  and  represented  a  slave  -  holding 
state.  "  From  the  beginning  of  the  Missouri  controversy 
up  to  the  year  1835,"  he  writes,  "  the  author  of  this  View 
looked  to  the  North  as  the.  point  of  danger  from  the 
slavery  agitation ;  since  that  time  he  has  looked  to  the 
South  for  that  danger,  as  Mr.  Madison  did  two  years  ear- 
lier."2 

Meanwhile,  a  champion  for  the  abolition  cause  appeared 
in  the  House  of  Kepresentatives  in  one  who  had  gained 
reputation  in  the  field  of  diplomacy,  whose  many  years  as 
Secretary  of  State  had  caused  to  shine  more  brightly  the 
lustre  he  had  acquired  abroad,  who  had  served  with  honor 
one  term  as  President,  but  to  whose  destiny  it  fell  to  win 
his  greatest  renown  and  to  render  the  country  his  greatest 
service  in  the  popular  branch  of  Congress.  This  was  John 
Quincy  Adams.  He  had  from  time  to  time  presented  peti- 
tions for  the  abolition  of  slavery  and  the  slave-trade  in  the 
District  of  Columbia,  and  they  had  gone  through  the  usual 
parliamentary  forms  without  remark.  But  they  were  com- 
ing too  thick  and  fast  for  Southern  sentiments,  and  in  Jan- 
uary, 1836,  when  Adams  presented  a  petition  in  the  usual 
language,  a  member  from  Georgia  moved  that  it  be  not 
received.  A  heated  discussion  of  some  days  followed,  and 
months  were  spent  in  the  concoction  of  a  scheme  by  which 
these  abolition  ideas  might  be  excluded  from  the  halls  of 
Congress.  The  result  was  the  adoption  of  the  famous  gag 
rule.  This  provided  that  whereas  the  agitation  of  the  sub- 
ject was  disquieting  and  objectionable,  "  all  petitions,  me- 
morials, resolutions,  or  papers  relating  in  any  way,  or  to  any 
extent  whatsoever,  to  the  subject  of  slavery  or  the  abolition 
of  slavery,  shall,  without  being  either  printed  or  referred, 


1  Thirty  Years'  View,  vol.  i.  p.  579.  '  Ibid.,  vol.  i.  p.  623. 


70  JOHN   QUINCY  ADAMS  [CH.  I. 

be  laid  upon  the  table,  and  that  no  further  action  whatever 
shall  be  had  thereon."  * 

This,  for  the  Southern  leaders,  was  the  beginning  of  the 
madness  that  the  gods  send  upon  men  whom  they  wish  to 
destroy;  for,  instead  of  making  the  fight  on  the  merits  of 
the  question,  they  shifted  the  ground.  Had  they  simply 
resisted  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District,  the  vast  pre- 
ponderance of  Northern  sentiment  would  have  been  with 
them ;  but,  with  a  fatuitous  lack  of  foresight,  they  put 
Adams  in  a  position  where  his  efforts  in  the  anti- slavery 
cause  were  completely  overshadowed  in  his  contest  for  the 
right  of  petition.  At  each  session  of  Congress,  "the  old 
man  eloquent," 3  for  he  had  gained  this  name,  presented  pe- 
tition after  petition  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  and  the 
slave-trade  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  each  time  they 
were  disposed  of  under  the  gag  rule.3  The  anti-slavery  peo- 
ple of  the  country,  fully  alive  to  the  fact  that  a  representa- 
tive had  appeared  who  would  present  such  prayers,  busied 
themselves  in  getting  up  and  forwarding  to  him  petitions, 
and  those  he  presented  must  be  numbered  by  thousands, 
and  they  were  signed  by  300,000  petitioners.4  Never  had 
there  been  such  a  contest  on  the  floors  of  Congress.  One 
man,  with  no  followers  and  no  adherents,  was  pitted  against 
all  the  representatives  from  the  South.  It  was  a  contest 
that  set  people  to  thinking.  The  question  could  not  fail  to 
be  asked,  If  the  slave  power  now  demands  that  the  right  of 
petition  must  be  sacrificed,  what  will  be  the  next  sacred  re- 
publican principle  that  must  be  given  up  in  obedience  to  its 
behests?  Yet  the  merchants  and  manufacturers  of  Boston 
had  no  sympathy  with  the  efforts  of  Adams ;  they  did  not 
approve  of  his  stirring  up  the  question.  But  the  district 


1  Life  of  John  Quincy  Adams,  Morse,  p.  251. 

»  "That  grand  old  man,"  W.  H.  Seward  called  him.     Life  of  Seward, 
vol.  i.  p.  713. 

*  This  rule  was  not  repealed  until  Dec.  3d,  1844. 
4  Schouler,  vol.  iv.  p.  302. 


CH.  I]  JOHN   QUINCY  ADAMS  71 

he  represented  was  the  Plymouth,  and,  true  to  the  sacred 
memories  of  freedom  its  name  suggests,  its  voters  sent  him 
for  eight  successive  terms  to  the  House,  and  he  died  there 
with  the  harness  on  his  back.1 

Adams  was  a  master  of  sarcasm  and  invective,  and  his 
use  of  these  weapons  of  argument  was  unsparing  and  ef- 
fective. A  man  without  friends,  his  enemies  were  many. 
While  not  an  orator  in  the  highest  sense  of  the  term,  he 
was  ever  ready  to  speak,  and  kept  a  cool  head  in  the  midst 
of  the  heat  and  excitement  that  his  efforts  always  aroused. 
His  is  a  character  on  whom  the  historian  would  fain  linger. 
His  honesty  of  purpose  and  fearless  bearing  atone  manifold 
for  his  cold  heart  and  repellent  exterior.  It  is  not  given  to 
us  to  see  many  public  men  as  we  see  John  Quincy  Adams. 
In  his  famous  diary  he  jots  down  his  impressions  of  men 
and  events,  and  discloses  his  inmost  thoughts  and  feelings. 
His  record  is  a  crucial  test  of  character.  No  one  can  rise 
from  a  perusal  of  that  diary  without  an  increased  feeling 
of  admiration  for  the  man.  We  may  discern  foibles  we 
had  not  looked  for,  but  we  see  with  greater  force  the  virt- 
ues. The  honesty,  the  sincerity  and  strength  of  character 
give  us  a  feeling  of  pride  that  such  a  man  was  an  American. 

While  Adams  appeared  with  a  bold  front  in  public,  he 
was  in  reality  torn  by  conflicting  emotions.  He  confides 
to  his  diary :  "  The  abolitionists  generally  are  constantly 
urging  me  to  indiscreet  movements  which  would  ruin  me, 
and  weaken  and  not  strengthen  their  cause.  My  own  fam- 
ily, on  the  other  hand,  exercise  all  the  influence  they  pos- 
sess to  restrain  and  divert  me  from  all  connection  with  the 
abolitionists  and  their  cause.  Between  these  adverse  im- 
pulses my  mind  is  agitated  almost  to  distraction.  The  pub- 
lic mind  in  my  own  district  and  State  is  convulsed  between 
the  slavery  and  abolition  questions,  and  I  walk  on  the  edge 
of  a  precipice  in  every  step  that  I  take." a  Another  entry 

1  An  interesting  account  of  this  work  of  Adams  may  be  found  in  chap, 
iii.  of  Life  of  J.  Q.  Adams,  by  Morse,  which  I  have  freely  used. 
5  Entry  in  diary,  Sept.  1st,  1837,  Memoirs,  vol.  ix.  p.  365. 


72  WEBSTER  ON  SLAVERY  [On.  I. 

made  in  the  diary  in  the  same  year  is  a  faithful  represen- 
tation of  the  state  of  public  opinion  on  what  had  now  be- 
come the  all-absorbing  question.  "It  is  also  to  be  con- 
sidered," he  wrote,  "  that  at  this  time  the  most  dangerous 
of  all  the  subjects  for  public  contention  is  the  slavery  ques- 
tion. In  the  South  it  is  a  perpetual  agony  of  conscious 
guilt  and  terror,  attempting  to  disguise  itself  under  sophis- 
tical argumentation  and  braggart  menaces.  In  the  North 
the  people  favor  the  whites  and  fear  the  blacks  of  the 
South.  The  politicians  court  the  South  because  they  want 
their  votes.  The  abolitionists  are  gathering  themselves 
into  societies,  increasing  their  numbers,  and  in  zeal  they 
kindle  the  opposition  against  themselves  into  a  flame  ;  and 
the  passions  of  the  populace  are  all  engaged  against  them." ' 
In  1837,  Webster,  in  a  speech  at  New  York,  described 
the  anti-slavery  sentiment  of  the  country  in  felicitous  words. 
"  The  subject"  (of  slavery),  said  he,  "has  not  only  attracted 
attention  as  a  question  of  politics,  but  it  has  struck  a  far 
deeper-toned  chord.  It  has  arrested  the  religious  feeling 
of  the  country ;  it  has  taken  strong  hold  on  the  consciences 
of  men.  He  is  a  rash  man  indeed,  and  little  conversant 
with  human  nature,  and  especially  has  he  a  very  erroneous 
estimate  of  the  character  of  the  people  of  this  country,  who 
supposes  that  a  feeling  of  this  kind  is  to  be  trifled  with  or 
despised."2  It  no  longer  required  the  martyr  spirit  to  be 
an  abolitionist  in  the  eastern  part  of  the  country,  and  yet 
there  were  few  accessions  from  the  influential  part  of  the 
community.  It  was  an  affair  of  great  moment,  when  Wen- 
dell Phillips  and  Edmund  Quincy,  representatives  of  the 
wealth,  culture,  and  highest  social  position  of  Boston,  joined 
the  anti-slavery  society.  Wendell  Phillips  became  an  abo- 
litionist from  seeing  Garrison  dragged  through  the  streets 
of  Boston  by  a  mob ;  and  Quincy's  action  was  decided  by 
the  martyrdom  of  Love  joy,  who  persisted  in  publishing  an 


1  Entry,  April  19th,  1837,  Memoirs,  vol.  ix.  p.  349. 

2  Life  of  Webster,  Curtis,  vol.  i.  p.  560. 


CH.I.]  GROWTH  OF  ABOLITION  SENTIMENT  73 

anti-slavery  paper  at  Alton,  111.,  and  was  shot  down  by  a 
pro-slavery  mob. 

In  1838,  Calhoun  averred  that  the  abolition  "  spirit  was 
growing,  and  the  rising  generation  was  becoming  more 
strongly  imbued  with  it." '  His  colleague,  Senator  Preston, 
alarmed  at  the  increasing  power  of  the  movement,  declared 
from  his  seat  in  the  Senate  that  if  they  could  catch  an 
abolitionist  in  South  Carolina,  they  would  try  him  and 
hang  him.8  Yet  the  road  to  political  preferment  was  not 
through  sympathy  with  the  abolitionists.  Clay,  anxious 
for  the  presidential  nomination  of  1840,  took  occasion  to 
place  upon  record  his  opinion  of  these  agitators.8  He  abused 
them  roundly,  denounced  their  methods,  and  said  that  a 
single  idea  had  taken  possession  of  their  minds,  which  they 
pursued,  "reckless  and  regardless  of  all  consequences." 
They  were  ready  to  hurry  us  down  "  that  dreadful  preci- 
pice" to  "civil  war,  a  dissolution  of  the  Union,  and  the 
overthrow  of  a  government  in  which  are  concentrated  the 
fondest  hopes  of  the  civilized  world."4  When  Clay  had 
finished,  Calhoun  rose  and  commended  highly  the  Ken- 
tucky senator  for  his  change  of  opinion  on  slavery.  A 
biographer  of  Clay  considers  it  probable  that  this  speech 
was  carefully  prepared,  and  submitted  before  delivery  to 
Senator  Preston  for  approval,  and  it  was  in  reference  to  the 
thoughts  he  therein  formulated  that  Clay  gave  utterance 
to  the  well-known  saying,  "  I  trust  the  sentiments  and 
opinions  are  correct ;  I  had  rather  be  right  than  be  Presi- 
dent."6 

"  The  most  angry  and  portentous  debate  which  had  yet 
taken  place  in  Congress"  on  slavery  occurred  in  1839,  in 
the  House  of  Kepresentatives.8  The  slavery  question  could 

1  Thirty  Years'  View,  Benton,  vol.  ii.  p.  135. 
s  Life  of  Garrison,  vol.  ii.  p.  247. 

*  In  the  Senate,  Feb.,  1839. 

4  Thirty  Years'  View,  Benton,  vol.  ii.  p.  155. 

*  Life  of  Clay,  Schurz,  vol.  ii.  p.  169  et  ante. 
6  Thirty  Years'  View,  Benton,  vol.  ii.  p.  150. 


74  GROWTH  OF   ABOLITION  SENTIMENT  [Cn.  I. 

no  longer  be  shut  out  from  the  halls  of  the  national  legis- 
lature. The  abolitionists  had  now  begun  to  take  political 
action ;  this  was  the  reason  why  Clay  spoke  with  such  ve- 
hemence against  them,  and  it  tended  to  intensify  the  ex- 
citement each  time  that  the  subject  was  broached  in  either 
the  House  or  the  Senate.  For  more  than  a  year  they  had 
adopted  the  system  of  putting  questions  to  candidates,  con- 
gressional and  local,  demanding  an  expression  of  opinion 
on  the  vital  question ;  and,  guided  by  these  declarations  of 
sentiments,  the  abolitionist  vote  was  beginning  to  have  in 
some  states  an  important  influence  on  the  result  of  elec- 
tions. In  1840  a  division  in  the  ranks  of  the  abolitionists 
took  place,  arising  out  of  a  difference  of  opinion  regarding 
political  action.  Many  of  them  thought  they  should  take 
a  part  in  active  political  life,  and  even  form  a  political  party, 
while  others,  headed  by  Garrison  and  Phillips,  held  that  the 
movement  ought  to  remain  purely  moral,  and  they  should 
only  use  moral  means  for  the  accomplishment  of  their  ends. 
Garrison  never  voted  but  once,  and  Wendell  Phillips  never 
voted.1  The  separation  into  two  factions  is  a  proof  of  the 
growing  power  of  the  abolitionists,  for  as  long  as  all  hands 
were  raised  against  them,  perfect  harmony  existed  in  their 
ranks.  Dissension,  or  rather  division,  came  with  prosperity ; 
there  were  now  two  thousand  anti-slavery  societies  with  a 
membership  of  200,000.2  This  was  the  acme  of  the  moral 
movement.  The  Liberator,  indeed,  continued  to  appear 
weekly,  but  its  denunciations  of  the  slave  power  were  ac- 
companied by  criticisms  of  the  opposing  faction.  In  the 
next  decade  the  Garrison  abolitionists  suffered  loss  of  in- 
fluence by  advocating  disunion  as  a  remedy.  Failing  to 
appreciate  the  love  for  the  Union  and  reverence  for  the 
Constitution  that  prevailed  among  the  mass  of  the  Northern 
people,  they  adopted  the  motto,  "  No  union  with  slave- 
holders," and  proclaimed  the  Constitution  "  a  covenant  with 


1  Life  of  Garrison,  vol.  i.  p.  455 ;  Life  of  Wendell  Phillips,  Austin,  p.  5. 
*  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power,  Wilson,  vol.  i.  p.  186. 


CH.  I]  THE   TEXAS   QUESTION  75 

death  and  agreement  with  hell." '  Many  years  afterwards 
Garrison  virtually  admitted  his  mistake,  saying  that  "  when 
he  pledged  himself  to  fight  against  the  covenant  with  death 
and  agreement  with  hell,  he  did  not  think  that  he  should 
live  to  see  death  and  hell  secede  from  the  Union."  * 

The  muse  of  history  has  done  full  justice  to  the  abolition- 
ists. Among  them  were  literary  men,  who  have  known 
how  to  present  their  cause  with  power,  and  the  noble  spirit 
of  truthfulness  pervades  the  abolition  literature.  One  may 
search  in  vain  for  intentional  misrepresentation.  Abuse  of 
opponents  and  criticism  of  motives  are  common  enough, 
but  the  historians  of  the  abolition  movement  have  endeav- 
ored to  relate  a  plain,  honest  tale;  and  the  country  has 
accepted  them  and  their  work  at  their  true  value.  More- 
over, a  cause  and  its  promoters  that  have  been  celebrated 
in  the  vigorous  lines  of  Lowell,  and  sung  in  the  impassioned 
verse  of  Whittier,  will  be  of  perennial  memory.  Lowell's 
tribute  to  Garrison,  as  the  "  poor,  unlearned  young  man," 
toiling  over  his  types,  "friendless  and  unseen,''  while  yet 
through  his  efforts  "the  freedom  of  a  race  began,"  fixes 
his  place  in  history.  Whittier  repels  the  charge  against 
Garrison  that  he  is  "  rash  and  vain,"  "  a  searcher  after 
fame;"  the  poet  has  known  the  agitator  well,  has  read 
"  his  mighty  purpose  long,"  and  nothing  can  "  dim  the  sun- 
shine of  my  faith  and  earnest  trust  in  thee."  Praise  like 
this  is  more  than  mere  poetry  for  the  moment ;  it  is  the 
deep,  earnest  conviction  of  men  of  high  character.8 

AThe  story  of  the  annexation  of  Texas  and  the  conquest  of 
New  Mexico  and  California  is  not  a  fair  page  in  our  history. 
The  extension  of  our  boundary  to  the  Rio  Grande,  and  the 
rounding  of  our  Pacific  possessions  by  the  acquisition  of 
California,  gave  symmetrical  proportions  to  our  territory,  and 


1  Garrison  and  his  Times,  Johnson,  pp.  340-342.          *  Ibid.,  p.  347. 
3  "  Garrison  was  the  courageous  and  single-minded  apostle  of  the  no- 
ble body  of  abolitionists." — Autobiography  of  John  Stuart  Mill,  p.  268. 


76  THE  TEXAS  QUESTION  [Cn.  L 

this  consideration  has  induced  many  writers  to  justify  the 
winning  of  this  domain.1  But  in  pondering  the  plain  narra- 
tive of  these  events,  more  reason  for  humiliation  than  pride 
will  be  found. 

Texas,  a  part  of  the  Mexican  republic,  was  settled  by 
hardy  adventurers  from  our  southwestern  States,  who,  des- 
pite the  fact  that  Mexico  had  abolished  slavery  by  presi- 
dential decree,  took  with  them  to  the  new  country  their 
slaves.  The  Americans,  after  their  arrival,  paid  no  attention 
to  the  prohibition  of  slavery,  and  the  Mexican  government, 
in  the  interest  of  peace,  allowed  an  interpretation  of  the 
edict  that  excluded  Texas  from  its  operation.  But  there 
were  no  sympathetic  relations  between  the  Texans  and  Mex- 
icans. The  difference  between  the  Spanish  and  English 
nationalities,  between  Continental  and  English  institutions, 
between  the  Catholic  and  Protestant  religions,  was  too  great 
for  the  hope  that  any  union  could  exist  between  the  two 
peoples.  Texas  had  with  the  province  of  Coahuila  been 
constituted  one  state  by  the  Mexican  Constitution  of  1827. 
This  was  not  satisfactory  to  the  Texans,  who  demanded 
autonomy.  This  demand  caused  constant  friction  between 
them  and  the  central  government,  and  finally  resulted  in 
an  attempt  of  the  President,  Santa  Anna,  to  enforce  obedi- 
ence by  military  authority,  and  Texas  rebelled.  The  Texans 
were  victorious  in  the  decisive  battle  of  San  Jacinto  in  1836, 
and  gave  the  world  evidence  that  they  were  able  to  estab- 
lish a  government  de  facto?  The  independence  of  Texas 


1  Emerson  had  remarkable  foresight.  In  1844  he  wrote  in  his  diary: 
"The  question  of  the  annexation  of  Texas  is  one  of  those  which  look 
very  differently  to  the  centuries  and  to  the  years.  It  is  very  certain  that 
the  strong  British  race,  which  have  now  overrun  so  much  of  this  conti- 
nent, must  also  overrun  that  tract  and  Mexico  and  Oregon  also ;  and  it  will 
in  the  course  of  ages  be  of  small  import  by  what  particular  occasions  and 
methods  it  was  done." — Memoir  of  R.  W.  Emerson,  Cabot,  vol.  ii.  p. 
676. 

*  President  Jackson  had  tried  to  buy  Texas,  and,  failing  in  that,  had, 
according  to  John  Q.  Adams,  engaged  in  a  plot  with  his  friend  Houston 


CH.I.]  WEBSTER  ON  TEXAS  ANNEXATION  77 

was  recognized  by  the  United  States  in  1837,  and  soon  after 
by  England,  France,  and  Belgium.  In  the  Senate  debate 
on  the  subject,  Calhoun  avowed  that  he  was  not  only  in 
favor  of  the  recognition  of  the  new  republic  as  an  indepen- 
dent nation,  but  he  desired  the  admission  of  Texas  into  the 
Union.  This  project  soon  came  to  have  warm  advocates, 
and  attracted  so  much  attention  that  Webster  deemed  it  in- 
cumbent on  him  to  express  an  opinion  on  the  matter  in  a 
set  speech  delivered  in  New  York  City.  "  Texas,"  said  he, 
"  is  likely  to  be  a  slave-holding  country,  and  I  frankly  avow 
my  entire  unwillingness  to  do  anything  that  shall  extend 
the  slavery  of  the  African  race  on  this  continent  or  add 
other  slave-holding  states  to  the  Union.  When  I  say  I  re- 
gard slavery  in  itself  as  a  great  moral,  social,  and  political 
evil,  I  only  use  language  which  has  been  adopted  by  distin- 
guished men,  themselves  citizens  of  slave-holding  states.  I 
shall  do  nothing,  therefore,  to  favor  or  encourage  its  further 
extension.  ...  In  my  opinion,  the  people  of  the  United 
States  will  not  consent  to  bring  into  the  Union  a  new,  vastly 
extensive,  slave-holding  country.  ...  In  my  opinion,  they 
ought  not  to  consent  to  it." ' 

This  was  the  general  feeling  at  the  North.  Webster  was 
an  exponent  of  the  principles  of  the  Whig  party,  and  the  ac- 
tion of  President  Van  Buren  later  in  the  same  year  makes 
it  apparent  that  the  Northern  Democrats  were  opposed  to 
annexation.  The  Texan  envoy  at  Washington  broached  the 
project  to  the  President,  but  after  careful  consideration  he 
declined  the  proffer,  giving  for  an  ostensible  reason  that  as 
Mexico  and  Texas  were  at  war,  the  incorporation  of  Texas 
into  the  Union  would  imply  a  disposition  on  our  part  to  es- 
pouse her  quarrel  with  Mexico.  In  the  next  year,  the  Senate 
was  applied  to,  but  that  body,  by  a  decisive  majority,  re- 
fused to  take  any  step  towards  annexation. 

for  the  revolt  of  Texas  and  for  bringing  her  into  the  Union.  See  Schou- 
ler,  vol.  iv.  p.  251. 

1  Speech  at  Niblo's  Saloon,  New  York  City,  March,  1837,  Webster's 
Works,  vol.  i.  p.  356. 


78  PRESIDENT  TYLER  AND  TEXAS  [Cn.  I. 

Owing  to  these  rebuffs,  the  question  slept  until  1843. 
Meanwhile  Harrison  had  been  elected  President,  had  died, 
and  had  been  succeeded  by  John  Tyler,  who,  though  former- 
ly a  Democrat,  had  become  a  Whig  and  was  chosen  Vice- 
President.  He  had  not  been  long  in  the  presidential  chair 
when  it  was  evident  that  he  leaned  towards  the  party  of  his 
first  love  ;  and  when  he  came  into  conflict  with  the  Whig 
party,  where  its  fundamental  principles  were  involved,  all 
the  members  of  the  original  cabinet  resigned  except  Webster, 
who  retained  the  portfolio  of  State  for  the  reason  that  he 
was  engaged  in  the  negotiation  of  an  important  treaty  with 
England.  He  remained  in  the  cabinet  until  he  and  Lord 
Ashburton  had  agreed  upon  the  treaty  of  Washington  ;  and 
he  still  lingered  until  it  had  been  ratified  by  both  govern- 
ments, and  Congress  had  passed  laws  carrying  it  into  effect.1 
The  position,  however,  became  distasteful  to  him,  owing  to 
the  quarrel  between  the  President  and  the  Whigs,  and  in 
the  spring  of  1843  he  resigned.  By  this  time  Tyler  had  be- 
come committed  to  Texas  annexation,  and,  as  he  knew  Web- 
ster was  opposed  to  it,  he  gladly  accepted  tjie  resignation.' 
A  short  time  afterwards  Upshur,  of  Virginia,  who  was  ardent- 
ly in  favor  of  the  Texas  project,  became  Secretary  of  State. 
In  the  summer  of  1843  the  intrigue  began.  Congress  was 
not  in  session.  The  President,  Upshur,  and  the  Southern 
schemers  could  pursue  their  machinations  almost  unnoticed. 

On  the  assembling  of  Congress,  in  December,  1843,  the 
scheme  began  to  develop.  As  Benton  had  strong  national 
sentiments,  as  he  had  been  opposed  to  the  retrocession  of 
Texas,8  and  was  a  true  embodiment  of  the  boundless  spirit 


1  Life  of  Webster,  Lodge,  p.  259 ;  Life  of  Crittenden,  Coleman,  vol.  i.  p. 
205. 

*  The  President  had  broached  the  subject  tentatively  to  Webster  in  a 
letter  dated  Oct.  llth,  1841.  Letters  and  Times  of  the  Tylers,  vol.  ii.  p. 
126.  I  do  not  know  what  reply,  if  any,  was  made  to  this  communication. 
See  Memoirs  of  J.  Q.  Adams,  vol.  xi.  p.  347 ;  also  Schouler,  vol.  iv.  pp. 
437, 447,  note. 

3  Texas  had  generally  been  considered  as  included  in  the  Louisiana 


CH.I.]  PRESIDENT  TYLER  AND  TEXAS  79 

of  the  West,  the  project  was  opened  to  him.  But  the  in- 
triguers had  not  reckoned  wisely  on  the  man,  for  Benton 
told  them  he  believed  their  scheme  was,  on  the  part  of  some, 
a  presidential  intrigue  against  Van  Buren  and  a  plot  to  dis- 
solve the  Union,  and  on  the  part  of  others  a  Texas  scrip  and 
land  speculation,  and  he  was  against  it.1  These  motives 
had  their  share,  but  the  consideration  above  all  others  that 
prompted  the  Southern  faction  was  the  desire  to  restore,  by 
an  accession  of  slave  territory,  the  balance  of  power  lost  by 
the  gain  in  population  at  the  North.  If  four  slave  states 
could  be  carved  out  of  Texas,  the  South  might  retain  her 
control  of  the  Senate,  although  she  had  lost  the  House. 

In  this  same  winter,  Webster,  though  not  at  that  time  in 
public  life,  got  an  inkling,  while  at  Washington  attending 
the  Supreme  Court,  of  the  negotiations  the  administration 
were  carrying  on  with  Texas.  "  I  was  astounded,"  he 
said,  "  at  the  boldness  of  the  government." a  Tyler  was  a 
liberally  educated  gentleman,  of  good  birth,  fine  breeding, 
and  graceful  manners,  but  of  moderate  capacity  and  narrow 
ideas ;  yet  he  had  a  certain  dogged  persistence  and  audacity 
that  sometimes  take  the  place  of  ability.  The  President 
did  not  advocate  the  annexation  of  Texas,  however,  for  the 
reason  that  it  would  augment  the  slave  power.  He  thought 
that  he  took  a  broad  national  view  of  the  subject,  and  not  a 
narrow  sectional  one.  "  The  monopoly  of  the  cotton  plant," 
he  afterwards  wrote,  "  was  the  great  and  important  con- 
cern;" and  he  said  that  Calhoun  could  see  the  Texas  project 
only  in  its  bearing  on  the  extension  of  slavery.  "  That 
idea,"  he  wrote,  "  seemed  to  possess  him  and  Upshur  as  a 
single  idea" 3 

On  February  28th,  1844,  occurred  a  distressing  accident, 

purchase,  but  in  the  treaty  with  Spain  for  the  acquisition  of  Florida  it 
had  been  ceded  to  Mexico,  then  belonging  to  Spain,  by  the  administra- 
tion of  Monroe. 

1  Thirty  Years'  View,  vol.  ii.  p.  583. 

1  Curtis,  vol.  ii.  p.  232. 

8  Letters  and  Times  of  the  Tylers,  vol.  ii.  p.  483.     See  also  p.  126. 


80  CALHOUN  AND  TEXAS  [CaL 

the  results  of  which  were  to  hasten  the  execution  of  the  an- 
nexation treaty  with  Texas  that  had  already  been  prepared.1 
The  President,  a  party  of  officials,  and  friends  were  assisting 
as  spectators  at  the  trial  of  a  new  piece  of  ordnance  on 
board  of  the  man-of-war  Princeton,  when  the  bursting  of 
the  big  gun  "Peacemaker"  killed  several  persons,  among 
whom  was  Upshur,  the  Secretary  of  State.  Passing  the 
night  after  the  accident  in  deep  reflection,  Henry  A.  Wise, 
of  Virginia,  a  confidential  friend  of  the  President,  Whose 
eagerness  for  the  annexation  of  Texas  went  beyond  bounds, 
came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  man  of  all  others  to  drive 
the  project  forward  was  Calhoun.  .Repairing  to  the  White 
House  in  the  early  morning,  while  the  President  was  still 
a  prey  to  the  painful  emotions  excited  by  the  previous 
day's  occurrence,  Wise  actually  browbeat  Tyler  into  the 
appointment  of  Calhoun  as  Secretary  of  State.2  Calhoun 
became  the  master  spirit  of  the  cabinet.  The  man  of  one 
idea,  and  that  idea  the  extension  of  slavery,  had  a  large 
share  of  executive  direction.  The  annexation  project  no 
longer  lagged ;  it  galloped  towards  consummation.  Calhoun 
was  appointed  and  confirmed  March  6th  (1844).  On  April 
llth,  although  Mexico  was  at  peace  with  us,  he  complied  with 
a  request,  made  some  months  previously,  and  promised  to  lend 
our  army  and  navy  to  the  President  of  Texas  to  be  used  in 
her  war  against  Mexico.  On  the  following  day,  the  treaty 
of  annexation  of  Texas  to  the  United  States  was  signed. 
What  Texas  had  vainly  sought,  and  what  the  extreme 
Southern  party  had  ardently  desired  for  eight  years,  was  ac- 
complished, so  far  as  it  lay  in  the  power  of  the  executive  de- 
partment of  the  government. 

Ten  days  went  by  before  the  treaty  was  sent  to  the  Sen- 
ate,1 for  Calhoun  wished  to  submit  with  it  his  reply  to  a 

1 "  The  treaty  as  signed  was  the  work  of  Abel  P.  Upshur." — Letters  and 
Times  of  the  Tylers,  vol.  ii.  p.  297. 

'  See  Seven  Decades  of  the  Union,  Henry  A.  Wise,  chap.  xi. ;  Letters  and 
Times  of  the  Tylers,  vol.  ii.  p.  294. 

'  "  The  treaty  for  the  annexation  of  Texas  to  this  Union  was  this  day 


CH.I]  CALHOUN  AND  TEXAS  81 

letter  of  Lord  Aberdeen,  the  British  Minister  of  Foreign  Af- 
fairs, which  he  esteemed  a  powerful  argument  in  favor  of 
annexation.  A  despatch  of  Aberdeen  had  been  communi- 
cated to  Upshur  in  the  usual  diplomatic  manner,  in  which 
was  expressed  the  desire  to  see  slavery  abolished  in  Texas, 
for  Great  Britain  exerted  herself  to  procure  the  abolition  of 
slavery  everywhere ;  but  any  thought  of  acting  directly  or 
indirectly  on  the  United  States  through  Texas  was  plainly 
disclaimed,  and  the  minister  avowed  for  his  government  that 
nothing  but  open  and  honest  efforts  would  be  made.  Cal- 
houn  asserted  that  this  policy  of  Great  Britain  made  it  nec- 
essary for  the  United  States  to  annex  Texas  as  a  measure  of 
self-defence.1  This  letter  that  he  sent  to  the  Senate  with 
the  treaty  began  with  a  false  assumption*  and  unfair  rea- 
soning, and  ended  with  the  humiliating  argument  showing 
the  wisdom  and  humanity  of  African  slavery  by  a  statisti- 
cal contrast  of  the  comfort,  intelligence,  and  morals  of  slaves 
as  compared  with  the  free  colored  people  in  the  United 
States.3 

But  the  letter  failed  to  convince  the  Senate,  and  it  refused 
to  ratify  the  treaty  by  a  vote  of  35  to  16.4  The  President 
and  his  Secretary  were  grievously  disappointed.  In  addi- 
tion to  the  chagrin  at  the  failure  of  a  cherished  state  plan, 
Calhoun  felt  keenly  the  loss  of  opportunity  further  to  air 


(April  22d)  sent  in  to  the  Senate ;  and  with  it  went  the  freedom  of  the  hu- 
man race." — Diary  of  J.  Q.Adams,  Memoirs,  vol.  xii.  p.  13. 

1  Life  of  Calhoun,  Von  Hoist,  p.  231. 

3  "  However  flexible  political  morality  may  be,  a  lie  is  a  lie,  and  Cal- 
houn knew  that  there  was  not  one  particle  of  truth  in  these  assertions." — 
Life  of  Calhoun,  Von  Hoist,  p.  233. 

3  This  letter  was  published  in  Niles's  Register,  vol.  Ixvi.  p.  172 ;  see  de- 
fence of  Calhoun,  Life  by  Jenkins,  p.  403. 

*  "  During  the  whole  continuance  of  these  debates  in  the  Senate,  the 
lobbies  of  the  chamber  were  crowded  with  speculators  in  Texas  scrip 
and  lands,  and  with  holders  of  Mexican  claims — all  working  for  the  rat- 
ification of  the  treaty,  which  would  bring  with  it  an  increase  of  value  to 
their  property." — Thirty  Years'  View,  Benton,  vol.  ii.  p.  623. 
I.— 6 


82  CALHOUN  AND  TEXAS  JOB.! 

his  closet  dialectics.  A  letter  of  his  written  at  this  time1 
shows  that  in  the  event  of  annexation  he  expected  a  reply 
from  Aberdeen,  to  which  he  hoped  to  return  a  crushing  re- 
joinder. Happily  the  country  was  spared  the  humiliation 
of  maintaining  the  affirmative  in  a  diplomatic  controversy 
on  the  question,  Is  slavery  right  ?  Calhoun  was  disappoint- 
ed not  to  have  the  occasion  to  lecture  England  again  on 
the  advantage  of  slavery.  But  he  astonished  the  humane 
King  Louis  Philippe  by  a  despatch,  forwarded  by  the  Amer- 
ican minister  at  Paris,  in  which  he  attempted  to  make  clear 
the  community  of  interest  between  France  and  the  United 
States  in  maintaining  slavery  on  the  American  continent.* 

Although  signally  defeated  in  the  Senate,  the  administra- 
tion by  no  means  abandoned  its  project.  The  President  ap- 
pealed from  the  Senate  to  the  House  of  Eepresentatives. 
He  sent  all  the  documents  to  the  House,  with  an  explana- 
tory message  suggesting  that  Congress  had  the  power  to 
acquire  Texas  in  another  way  than  by  the  formal  ratifica- 
tion of  the  treaty.  This  was  an  obvious  hint  for  annexa- 
tion by  joint  resolution  of  Congress. 

Meanwhile  the  friends  of  the  Texas  scheme  did  not  con- 
fine themselves  to  the  advocacy  of  it  before  Congress.  They 
proposed  to  submit  the  question  to  the  people  in  the  presi- 
dential election  taking  place  this  year  (1844).  Clay  received 
by  acclamation  the  nomination  from  the  enthusiastic  Whigs0 
The  adroit  management  of  the  annexationists  was  shown 
in  the  manipulation  of  the  Democratic  convention,  which 
met  some  weeks  later.  A  majority  of  the  convention  was 
in  favor  of  the  nomination  of  Yan  Buren,  and  his  choice 
would  have  given  satisfaction  to  Northern  Democrats,  but 
his  opposition  to  immediate  annexation  caused  his  defeat. 
The  old  rule  requiring  two-thirds  of  the  convention  to  nom- 
inate was  adopted,  and  this  resulted  in  the  choice,  on  the 


1  It  was  not  published  until  sixteen  years  later,  see  Life  of  Calhoun, 
Von  Hoist,  p.  241. 
8  This  letter  may  be  found  in  Greeley's  American  Conflict,  vol.  i.  p.  169. 


OH.  I]  CLAY  AND  POLK  83 

ninth  ballot,  of  James  K.  Polk.  Had  ability  constituted  the 
test,  Polk  would  not  have  been  selected,  neither  had  a  long 
service  in  the  House  of  Representatives  given  him  a  claim  to 
distinction ;'  but  he  had  written,  "  I  am  in  favor  of  the  imme- 
diate re-annexation  of  Texas  to  the  territory  and  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States/' 2  and  this  was  the  reason  of  his 
nomination. 

The  election  of  Polk  was  due  to  a  clever  letter  written 
by  himself  and  to  foolish  letters  by  Clay,  Polk  satisfied 
the  Pennsylvania  protectionists,  and  the  campaign  in  that 
state  was  successfully  conducted  with  the  watchword  "Polk, 
Dallas,  and  the  tariff  of  1842."  Texas  annexation  was  the 
rock  on  which  Clay  made  shipwreck.  In  April,  before  his 
nomination,  he  wrote  a  letter  against  annexation.  Then  it 
was  represented  that  the  close  Southern  States  were  in 
danger,  and  in  July  came  from  his  pen  the  expression  of 
a  wish  to  see  Texas  added  to  the  Union  "  upon  just  and  fair 
terms,"  and  the  opinion  that  "  the  subject  of  slavery  ought 
not  to  affect  the  question  one  way  or  the  other."3  But 
now  his  anti-slavery  supporters  made  clamor,  and  in  Sep- 
tember Clay  declared  against  immediate  annexation.  This 
expression,  however,  did  not  counteract  the  mischief  done 
by  the  July  letter,  and  was  inadequate  to  retain  him  the 
favor  of  many  strong  anti-slavery  men.  The  Liberty  party, 
made  up  of  abolitionists  who  had  separated  from  the  anti 
slavery  society  of  Garrison,  had  nominated  for  the  presi- 
dency James  G.  Birney.  Birney,  of  Southern  birth  but 


1  The  question  "  Who  is  Polk  ?"  was  frequent  during  the  campaign. 

*  On  the  use  of  the  word  re-annexation,  see  Niles's  Register,  vol.  Ixvi. 
p.  250.  "  General  Cass  has  proved,  out  of  Prater's  Magazine,  that  the 
United  States  should  never  buy  nor  sell  out  the  word  re-annexation.  Ill- 
natured  people  there  are,  who  will  call  this  a  violent  occupation  of  for- 
eign domain.  But  they  have  a  humor  of  giving  ill  names  to  everything. 
We  should  regard  it  no  more  than  Ancient  Pistol  the  word  steal:  *  Con- 
vey, the  wise  it  call.  Steal  ?  foh  !  a  fico  for  the  phrase !' "  Cited  from 
the  Newark  Daily  Advertiser. 

9  Niles's  Register,  vol.  Ixvi.  p.  439. 


64  CLAY  AND  POLK  [0*1 

Northern  education,  was  a  gentleman  of  high  character  and 
a  practical  abolitionist,  for,  becoming  convinced  of  the 
wrong  of  slavery,  he  had  emancipated  his  own  slaves  and 
thenceforward  devoted  himself  to  the  anti-slavery  cause. 
He  had  gained  note  by  a  tract  he  had  written  entitled 
"  The  American  Churches  the  Bulwarks  of  American  Slav- 
ery." He  had  been  the  candidate  of  the  Liberty  party  four 
years  previously,  but  in  the  whole  country  had  only  received 
seven  thousand  votes.  His  candidacy  in  1844  would  prob- 
ably have  been  of  no  greater  moment  had  it  not  been  for 
the  unfortunate  July  letter  of  Clay,  which  alienated  enough 
Whigs  to  lose  him  the  State  of  New  York,  and  therefore 
the  election.  Polk  carried  New  York  State  by  a  plurality 
of  little  more  than  five  thousand,  while  Birney  polled  in  the 
same  state  nearly  sixteen  thousand  votes.  The  feeling  against 
the  annexation  of  Texas  gave  Birney  this  important  support, 
and,  while  well-meaning,  it  was  ill-considered  action.  Polk  or 
Clay  was  certain  to  be  elected  President.  The  success  of  Polk 
would  register  the  desire  of  the  country  to  have  Texas,  regard- 
less of  consequences,  while  the  election  of  Clay  would  certain- 
ly postpone,  and  might  defeat,  the  project  of  annexation ;  and 
a  vote  for  Birney  was  indirectly  a  vote  for  Polk.  Thus  ar- 
gued Adams,  Seward,  Greeley,  and  Giddings,  all  strong  anti- 
slavery  men.  But  the  abolitionists  rejoiced  at  the  defeat 
of  Clay ;  their  high-toned  exultation  mingled  with  the  bois- 
terous demonstrations  of  the  New  York  Democrats ; '  while 
never  before  or  since  has  the  defeat  of  any  man  in  this  coun- 
try brought  forth  such  an  exhibition  of  heart-felt  grief  from 
the  educated  and  respectable  classes  of  society  as  did  this 
defeat  of  Clay.  Men  were  frequently  heard  to  say  that  they 
now  "  had  no  more  interest  in  politics."  * 

The  real  meaning  of  the  election  of  Polk  was  proclaimed 
by  President  Tyler  in  his  annual  message.     A  controlling 


i  Life  of  Seward,  p.  731. 

1  Ibid.,  p.  732;  Life  of  Lincoln,  Herndon,  p.  270;  Life  of  Wade,  Kid- 
dle, p.  192. 


CH.L]  ANNEXATION  OF  TEXAS  85 

majority  of  the  people,  he  said,  and  a  large  majority  of  the 
states  have  declared  in  favor  of  immediate  annexation.  The 
House  of  Representatives  now  entered  into  the  plan  with 
zeal,  and  near  the  close  of  January,  1845,  passed  a  resolution 
providing  for  the  admission  of  Texas,  and,  with  her  consent, 
the  formation  of  four  additional  states  out  of  the  territory ; 
in  states  formed  north  of  the  line  of  36°  30'  north  latitude, 
slavery  to  be  prohibited.  The  Senate  did  not  incline  so  fa- 
vorably to  the  project.  Several  Democratic  senators  were 
opposed  to  accomplishing  the  object  in  this  manner,  and 
Benton  tells  how  their  support  was  gained.  In  the  Senate, 
the  House  resolution  was  amended  by  giving  the  President 
the  option  of  negotiating  another  treaty  of  annexation  or 
of  submitting  the  joint  resolution  to  Texas  for  her  accept- 
ance of  its  prescribed  conditions.  Benton  and  his  fellow- 
senators,  who  were  of  like  mind,  had  assurances  directly 
and  indirectly  from  the  President-elect  that  he  would  take 
the  option  of  treaty  negotiation  ; 1  and  they  had  the  asser- 
tion in  open  Senate  of  McDuffie,  the  close  friend  of  Cal- 
houn, that  the  actual  administration  would  take  no  steps  in 
the  matter  in  its  few  remaining  days  of  power.  The  bill, 
as  amended,  passed  the  Senate  by  a  majority  of  two  votes ; 
it  went  through  the  House  on  the  last  day  of  February, 
1845,  and  twenty -four  hours  later  it  received  the  signature 
of  the  President.  No  sooner  was  the  bill  signed  than  Tyler 
and  Calhoun,  although  they  had  but  three  days  more  of 
office,  despatched  a  special  agent  to  Texas  to  offer  the  terms 
of  annexation  as  provided  in  the  joint  resolution.  It  is  true 
that  the  instructions  to  their  envoy  were  courteously  sub- 
mitted to  Polk,  who,  however,  declined  any  interference  in 
the  matter.2  Texas  accepted  the  terms,  and  at  the  next  ses- 
sion of  Congress  was  formally  admitted  as  one  of  the  states 
of  the  Union.8 

1  Thirty  Years'  View,  Benton,  vol.  ii.  pp.  636-638.     This  is  denied  in 
Letters  and  Times  of  the  Tylers,  vol.  ii.  pp.  405,  409. 
a  Letters  and  Times  of  the  Tylers,  vol.  ii.  p.  363. 
'  A  few  years  afterwards  a  controversy  between  Calhoun  and  Tyler 


86  THE  OREGON  QUESTION  [Cn.  L 

Although  now  a  foregone  conclusion,  Webster,  who  had 
been  sent  again  to  the  Senate,  gave  voice  to  his  opposition 
to  the  scheme.  He  objected  to  the  admission  of  Texas  be- 
cause it  was  newly  acquired  slave  territory,  and  he  had, 
moreover,  another  reason,  which  he  put  into  words  of  wis- 
dom. "  It  is,"  said  he,  "  of  very  dangerous  tendency  and 
doubtful  consequences  to  enlarge  the  boundaries  of  this 
country.  .  .  .  There  must  be  some  limit  to  the  extent  of 
our  territory,  if  we  would  make  our  institutions  permanent. 
...  I  have  always  wished  that  this  country  should  exhibit 
to  the  nations  of  the  earth  the  example  of  a  great,  rich, 
powerful  republic  which  is  not  possessed  by  a  spirit  of  ag- 
grandizement. It  is  an  example,  I  thinkvdue  from  us  to  the 
world  in  favor  of  the  character  of  republican  government."  * 

The  diplomacy  of  the  Polk  administration,  though  not  as 
secret  as  that  of  Tyler,  was  fully  as  tortuous.  Polk,  in  his 
inaugural  address,  declared  that  our  title  to  the  whole  of 
Oregon  was  clear  and  unquestionable,2  and  that  he  intended 
to  maintain  that  title.  The  whole  of  Oregon  then  meant 
as  far  north  as  54°  40'  north  latitude,  now  the  southern 
boundary  of  Alaska.  The  northwestern  boundary  had  long 
been  in  dispute  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States ; 
but  the  assertion  of  the  President  was  extravagant,  and 
savored  rather  of  party  pressure  than  of  wise  diplomacy,  for 
the  claim  had  not  a  good  foundation.  Both  Webster  and 
Calhoun,  whose  experience  in  the  State  department  gave 
weight  to  their  judgment,  were  of  the  opinion  that  to  adopt 
the  parallel  of  49°  would  be  a  fair  settlement  of  the  dispute. 
After  a  certain  amount  of  diplomatic  fencing  between  the 


arose  as  to  who  should  have  the  credit  of  the  annexation.  See  Bentonrs 
Thirty  Years'  View,  and  Letters  and  Times  of  the  Tylers. 

1  Speech  in  the  Senate,  Dec.,  1845,  Works,  vol.  v.  p.  56.  President 
Tyler  said,  in  one  of  his  messages  advocating  annexation,  that  no  civil- 
ized government  on  earth  would  reject  the  offer  of  such  a  rich  and  fertile 
domain  as  Texas.  Letters  and  Times  of  the  Tylers,  vol.  ii.  p.  300. 

3  This  was  resolved  by  the  Democratic  convention  which  nominated 
Polk. 


CH.  L]  THE  MEXICAN  WAR  87 

two  countries,  the  Senate,  on  request  of  the  President,  advised 
him  by  a  large  majority  to  conclude  a  treaty  on  that  basis. 
Yery  differently  did  the  administration  act  regarding  the 
disputed  boundary  question  with  Mexico.  Although  that 
unfortunate  country  had  officially  notified  the  United  States 
that  the  annexation  of  Texas  would  be  treated  as  a  cause  of 
war,  so  constant  were  the  internal  quarrels  in  Mexico  that 
open  hostilities  would  have  been  avoided  had  the  conduct  of 
the  administration  been  honorable.  That  was  the  opinion 
of  Webster,  Clay,  Calhoun,  Benton,  and  Tyler.  But  as  the 
satirist  expressed  it,  the  Southerners  were  after  "  bigger 
pens  to  cram  with  slaves." '  Having  acquired  Texas,  they 
longed  for  New  Mexico  and  California.  A  dispute  arose 
whether  the  southwestern  boundary  was  the  river  Nueces 
or  the  Rio  Grande.  Negotiation  in  the  same  spirit  as  that 
had  with  Great  Britain  would  undoubtedly  have  settled  the 
difficulty,  but  the  President  arrogated  the  right  of  deciding 
the  question.  Mexico  was  actually  goaded  on  to  the  war. 
The  principle  of  the  manifest  destiny  of  this  country  was 
invoked  as  a  reason  for  the  attempt  to  add  to  our  territory 
at  the  expense  of  Mexico.2  General  Taylor,  who  had  com- 
mand of  the  United  States  troops  in  Texas,  was  ordered  to 
advance  to  the  Rio  Grande.  "  Why  not,"  Benton  had  thun- 
dered, "  march  up  to  fifty -four  forty  as  courageously  as  we 
march  upon  the  Rio  Grande  ?  Because  Great  Britain  is 
powerful  and  Mexico  weak." 3  On  General  Taylor's  arrival 
at  the  Rio  Grande,  he  planted  a  battery  which  commanded 
the  public  square  of  Matamoras,  a  Mexican  town  on  the  op- 
posite side  of  the  river,  and  blockaded  the  river  in  order  to 
cut  off  supplies  from  the  town.  The  Mexican  general  main- 


1  Biglow  Papers. 

*  "  Parson  Wilbur  sez 

thet  all  this  big  talk  of  our  destinies 

Is  half  on  it  ig'rance  an'  t'other  half  rum.'* 

— Biglow  Papers. 

*  Thirty  Years'  View,  vol.  ii.  p.  610. 


88  THE  MEXICAN  WAR  [CH.I 

tained  that  this  began  hostilities ;  he  crossed  over  to  the 
east  bank  of  the  Rio  Grande,  and  had  a  skirmish  with  a 
smaller  American  force,  in  which  sixteen  of  our  dragoons 
were  killed. 

When  this  news  arrived  in  Washington,  early  in  May, 
1846,  the  President  sent  a  message  to  both  houses  of  Con- 
gress, stating  that  American  blood  had  been  spilled  on  Amer- 
ican soil,  and  asked  that  the  existence  of  the  war  might  be 
recognized,  and  energetic  measures  taken  for  its  prosecution. 
Congress,  with  only  two  dissenting  voices  in  the  Senate  and 
fourteen  in  the  House,  immediately  declared  war.  This  una- 
nimity of  feeling  is  not  remarkable ;  for  as  long  as  love  of 
country  shall  remain  a  cardinal  virtue,  the  effort  will  be  made 
to  avenge  an  attack  on  one's  countrymen.  The  national  feel- 
ing had  so  deep  root  that  the  doctrine  "  Our  country,  right 
or  wrong,"  was  proclaimed  to  justify  the  sympathies  of  those 
who  believed  the  war  in- its  inception  to  have  been  an  out- 
rage. The  Mexicans  thought  that  the  war  was  the  result  of 
a  deliberately  calculated  scheme  of  robbery  on  the  part  of 
the  superior  power.1  As  Birdofredom  Sawin,  a  private  in 
the  Mexican  war,  was  told,  "  Our  nation's  bigger  'n  theirn, 
an'  so  its  rights  air  bigger." a  While  some  quiet  opposition 
at  the  North  existed,3  the  war  in  the  main  was  very  popular. 
It  needed  no  draft  to  fill  the  army;  more  volunteers  offered 
than  could  be  used.  The  war  lasted  nearly  two  years,4  and 
was  an  unbroken  series  of  victories.  Our  people  would  have 


1  H.  H.  Bancroft,  cited  in  Winsor's  Narrative  and  Critical  History,  vol. 
vii.  p.  356.  u  For  myself,  I  was  bitterly  opposed  to  the  measure  [the  an- 
nexation of  Texas],  and  to  this  day  regard  the  war  which  resulted  as  one 
of  the  most  unjust  ever  waged  by  a  stronger  against  a  weaker  nation." — 
General  Grant,  Personal  Memoirs,  vol.  i.  p.  53. 

*  Biglow  Papers. 

1  "  I  met  with  no  one  person  in  society  who  defended  the  aggression 
on  Mexican  territory."  The  dissatisfaction  of  many  with  the  war  "is 
unbounded."— Sir  Charles  Lyell,  1846,  Second  Visit,  vol.  ii.  p.  256. 

4  It  virtually  ended,  however,  in  Sept.,  1847,  having  begun  in  May, 
1846. 


CH.L]  THE  MEXICAN  WAR  89 

been  more  than  human  had  they  not  exulted  over  our  suc- 
cesses, due,  as  they  were,  to  the  genius  of  our  generals  and 
bravery  of  our  troops.  The  Polk  administration  was  de- 
servedly unpopular ;  it  declined  in  public  estimation  for  the 
reason  that  the  victories  in  the  field  were  won  by  two  Whig 
generals  whom  Polk  and  his  cabinet  fettered,  but  did  not 
dare  to  displace.1  The  war  gave  Taylor  his  military  reputa- 
tion and  made  him  President ;  it  added  to  Scott's  fame  and 
made  him  a  presidential  candidate. 

This  administration,  said  Benton,  "wanted  a  small  war 
just  large  enough  to  require  a  treaty  of  peace,  and  not  large 
enough  to  make  military  reputations  dangerous  for  the  pres- 
idency." a  It  waged  war  with  the  sword  in  one  hand  and 
the  olive  branch  in  the  other ;  but  the  olive  branch  was  to 
be  backed  with  money.  In  August  of  this  year  (1846),  and 
after  liberal  appropriations  had  been  made  for  the  vigorous 
prosecution  of  the  war,  the  President,  in  addition,  asked 
Congress  for  two  million  dollars  for  the  purpose  of  settling 
our  difficulties  with  Mexico.  It  was  no  secret  that  this 
money  would  be  used  to  aid  negotiations  that  had  in  view 
the  cession  of  considerable  territory  to  this  country,  but 
now  the  discussion  took  an  unforeseen  course,  and  one  far 
from  welcome  to  the  administration.  David  Wilmot,  a 
Democratic  representative  from  Pennsylvania,  was  selected 
to  propose  a  vital  condition  to  this  appropriation  of  money. 
He  had  advocated  Texas  annexation.  He  now  asserted  the 
necessity  of  the  war,  and  avowed  himself  in  favor  of  the 
acquisition  of  New  Mexico  and  California ;  but  he  offered 
an  amendment  to  the  two-million  bill,  which  provided  that 
slavery  should  be  forever  prohibited  in  all  the  territory  to 


1  "  Mr.  Folk's  mode  of  viewing  the  case  seems  to  have  been  this :  Scott 
is  a  "Whig;  therefore  the  Democracy  is  not  bound  to  observe  good  faith 
with  him.  Scott  is  a  Whig,  therefore  his  successes  may  be  turned  to  the 
prejudice  of  the  Democratic  party." — Autobiography  of  Lieut. -General 
Scott,  p.  400. 

*  Thirty  Years'  View,  vol.  ii.  p.  680< 


90  THE  WILMOT   PROVISO  [C«.X 

be  acquired  from  Mexico.  This  was  the  famous  Wilmot 
proviso ;  it  received  a  majority  of  nineteen  in  the  House, 
but  failed  in  the  Senate,  as  did  likewise  the  original  bill.  It 
was  charged  at  the  time,  but  probably  with  injustice,  that 
the  defeat  of  the  proviso  was  due  to  the  loquacity  of  one  of 
its  strong  supporters,  "  honest  John  Davis,"  senator  from 
Massachusetts.1 

At  the  next  session  of  Congress,  in  the  following  Febru- 
ary (1847),  the  Wilmot  proviso  again  came  up.  The  Presi- 
dent asked  for  an  appropriation  of  three  million  dollars, 
secret  service  money,  to  be  employed  at  his  discretion  in 
negotiating  a  treaty  with  Mexico.  A  bill  was  brought  into 
the  House  with  the  desired  stipulation,  and  to  it  was  tacked 
the  anti-slavery  proviso,  but  only  by  a  majority  of  nine. 
The  Senate  struck  out  the  amendment,  and  passed  the 
three-million  bill,  pure  and  simple,  in  accordance  with  the 
wish  of  the  administration.  The  matter  now  went  back  to 
the  House,  and,  by  a  majority  of  five,  it  receded  from  the 
Wilmot  proviso.  The  House  then  passed  the  bill  as  it  came 
from  the  Senate.  All  of  the  Whigs  and  many  of  the  Dem- 
ocrats from  the  free  States  voted  for  the  anti-slavery  amend- 
ment, but  every  member  from  the  slave  States,  except  the 
one  from  Delaware,  voted  against  it.  Popular  sentiment  at 
the  South  was  very  strongly  aroused  in  opposition  to  the 
Wilmot  proviso,  while  the  North  was  equally  zealous  in  its 
favor. 

During  the  year  1847  the  vigorous  prosecution  of  the  war 
went  on.  From  March  to  September  Scott  gained  marvel- 
lous victories;8  at  last  he  took  the  city  of  Mexico,  and  dis- 


1  See  defence  of  Davis,  Senate  speech,  March,  1847 ;  speech  of  Wilmot, 
Feb.,  1847;  Wilson's  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power,  vol.  ii.  p.  17; 
per  contra,  see  Von  Hoist,  vol.  iii.  p.  287  ;  Congressional  Globe,  vol.  xv. 
p.  1221 ;  Life  and  Speeches  of  A.  Lincoln,  Bartlett,  p.  64.     Davis  was  one 
of  the  two  senators  who  voted  against  the  declaration  of  war  against 
Mexico. 

2  it  jf  <Waverley '  and  'Guy  Mannering'  had  made  the  name  of  Scott 
immortal  on  one  side  of  the  Atlantic,  Cerro  Gordo  and  Churubusco  had 


CH.  I.]  THE  MEXICAN  WAR  91 

persed  the  Mexican  army.  Meanwhile,  we  had  obtained 
possession  by  military  power  of  the  territories  of  New 
Mexico  and  California.  The  new  House  of  Representatives 
that  met  in  December  differed  widely  in  sentiment  from  the 
preceding  House  towards  the  administration.  Then  there 
had  been  a  Democratic  majority  of  sixty;  in  the  present 
House  the  Democrats  were  in  a  minority  of  eight.  This 
showed  a  strange  revulsion  of  political  feeling,  for  the  elec- 
tions took  place  while  the  country  was  resounding  with  the 
victories  of  Taylor  and  Scott.  It  is  amazing  that  an  admin- 
istration should  have  been  condemned  by  the  voice  of  the 
people  when  the  operations  in  the  field  had  been  so  signally 
successful;  but  this  was  due  to  the  deep-seated  conviction 
that  the  war  had  been  unjustly  begun,  and  that  the  para- 
mount object  of  Polk  and  his  advisers  was  to  add  more 
slave  territory  to  the  Union. 

This  feeling  soon  found  expression  in  a  House  resolution 
that  the  war  with  Mexico  was  "  unnecessarily  and  uncon- 
stitutionally begun  by  the  President  of  the  United  States," 
and  this  opinion  was  heartily  endorsed  by  Webster  in  a 
Senate  speech.  u  I  concur  in  that  sentiment,"  he  said ;  "  I 
hold  that  to  be  the  most  recent  and  authentic  expression  of 
the  will  and  opinion  of  the  majority  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States." l  This  speech  set  forth  ably  and  with  much 
feeling  the  dangers  that  were  liable  to  accrue  from  an  ac- 
cession of  new  territory.  It  was  an  amplification  of  his 
remarks  at  the  preceding  session  when  he  stated:  "We 
want  no  extension  of  territory.  We  want  no  accession  of 
new  States.  The  country  is  already  large  enough." a  With 
a  premonition  of  the  evils  in  store  for  his  beloved  country, 
and  with  perhaps  a  dim  presage  of  how  his  own  great  rep- 


equally  immortalized  it  on  the  other.  If  the  novelist  had  given  the 
garb  of  truth  to  fiction,  had  not  the  warrior  given  to  truth  the  air  of 
romance  ?" — Sir  Henry  Bulwer  at  New  York,  1850,  Scott's  Autobiog- 
raphy, p.  539. 

1  Speech,  March  23d,  1848,  Works,  vol.  v.  p.  274. 

1  Remarks  in  the  Senate,  Feb.,  1847,  Curtis,  vol.  ii.  p.  305. 


92  THE  MEXICAN  WAR  [On.  I 

utation  was  to  suffer  in  the  effort  to  grapple  with  them,  he 
had  said:  "I  pretend  to  see  but  little  of  the  future,  and 
that  little  affords  no  gratification.  All  I  can  scan  is  con- 
tention, strife,  and  agitation." l 

The  opinion  of  an  unimportant  member  of  the  House  has 
an  interest  for  us  inspired  by  his  after-career.  Abraham 
Lincoln,  serving  his  first  and  only  term  in  Congress,  eager 
for  distinction  and  stimulated  by  the  expectations  of  his 
Illinois  comrades,  was  an  industrious  member,  ready  in 
speech  and  prompt  in  action.2  He  voted  for  the  House 
resolution  to  which  reference  has  been  made,  and  delivered 
a  set  speech  on  the  Mexican  war,  which  had  the  value  of 
being  phrased  in  plain  words  to  express  opinions  shared  by 
many  of  his  fellow-Whigs,  though  not  by  the  constituents 
of  his  prairie  district.  His  course  on  this  question  is  best 
described  in  his  own  words  of  some  years  later.  "  I  was  an 
old  Whig,"  said  he,  "  and  whenever  the  Democratic  party 
tried  to  get  me  to  vote  that  the  war  had  been  righteously 
begun  by  the  President,  I  would  not  do  it.  But  when  they 
asked  money  or  land  warrants,  or  anything  to  pay  the  sol- 
diers, I  gave  the  same  vote  that  Douglas  did." 8 

In  the  early  part  of  February,  1848,  a  treaty  of  peace 
was  negotiated  by  a  United  States  Commissioner  in  Mex- 
ico, and  this  afterwards  received  the  ratification  of  the 
President  and  the  Senate.  By  its  provisions,  New  Mexico 
and  Upper  California4  were  ceded  to  the  United  States,  and 
the  lower  Kio  Grande,  from  its  mouth  to  El  Paso,  was  taken 
as  the  boundary  of  Texas.  In  consideration  of  these  ac- 


*  Curtis,  vol.  ii.  p.  307. 

*  Life  of  Lincoln,  Lamon,  p.  280. 

*  Lincoln-Douglas  debates,  Life  of  Lincoln,  Arnold,  p.  78. 

*  New  Mexico  included  part  of  the  present  territory  of  the  same  name, 
all  of  Arizona  except  the  southern  part  (which  was  purchased  in  1858), 
practically  all  of  Utah  and  Nevada,  and  part  of  Colorado.     Upper  Cali- 
fornia was  substantially  the  present  State  of  California.   See  Narrative  and 
Critical  History  of  North  America,  Winsor,  vol.  vii.  p.  552,  for  map  show- 
ing exactly  the  territory  acquired. 


CH.  I.]  PEACE  WITH  MEXICO  93 

quisitions,  we  agreed  to  pay  Mexico  fifteen  million  dollars. 
The  significant  remark  was  made  that  we  obtained  Louisi- 
ana for  the  same  amount  of  money  and  without  a  war. 

An  incident  in  the  negotiation  of  the  treaty  displayed 
whither  was  our  drift  in  obedience  to  the  behest  of  the 
slave  power.  The  reader  will  remember  that  slavery  did 
not  exist  under  Mexican  law,  and  that  New  Mexico  and 
California  were  free  territory.  During  the  progress  of  the 
negotiations,  Mexico  begged  for  the  insertion  of  an  article 
providing  that  slavery  should  not  be  permitted  in  any  of 
the  territories  ceded.  Our  commissioner  replied  that  the 
bare  mention  of  the  subject  in  a  treaty  was  an  utter  im- 
possibility; that  if  the  territory  should  be  increased  ten- 
fold in  value,  and,  besides,  covered  all  over  a  foot  thick  with 
pure  gold,  on  the  single  condition  that  slavery  should  be 
excluded  therefrom,  he  could  not  then  even  entertain  the 
proposition,  nor  think  for  a  moment  of  communicating  it 
to  the  President.1  The  "invincible  Anglo-Saxon  race" 
could  not  listen  to  the  prayer  of  "  superstitious  Catholicism, 
goaded  on  by  a  miserable  priesthood,"3  even  though  the 
prayer  was  on  the  side  of  justice,  progress,  and  humanity. 

New  Mexico  and  California  were  ours,  and  some  measure 
of  government  for  them  must  be  devised ;  Oregon  likewise 
demanded  attention ;  and  it  would  all  have  been  a  simple 
matter  had  not  the  question  of  slavery  existed.  Early  in 
the  year  1848,  Douglas  brought  into  the  Senate  a  bill  pro- 
viding a  territorial  government  for  Oregon.8  It  excited  no 
discussion  until  May,  when  John  P.  Hale,  of  New  Hamp- 
shire, a  Free-soil  Democrat,  offered  an  amendment,  of  which 


1  Letter  of  N.  P.  Trist  to  James  Buchanan,  Secretary  of  State,  quoted 
by  Von  Hoist,  vol.  iii.  p.  334 ;  see  also  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power, 
Wilson,  vol.  ii.  p.  26. 

2  These  expressions  were  used  by  Senator  Preston  in  an  enthusiastic 
speech  made  in  1836  on  the  news  of  the  Texan  victory  at  San  Jacinto. 
Thirty  Years'  View,  vol.  i.  p.  665. 

3  The  Territory  of  Oregon  comprised  the  present  States  of  Oregon  and 
Washington. 


94  THE   CALHOUN   THEORY  [Cn.L 

the  intent  was  that  slavery  should  be  prohibited  in  Oregon. 
This  gave  rise  to  a  long  and  earnest  debate,  in  which 
the  amendment  was  opposed  with  great  pertinacity.  The 
slavery  extensionists,  however,  had  no  idea  of  introducing 
their  system  of  labor  into  Oregon,  and  the  discussion  did 
not  so  much  hinge  on  the  actual  project  as  on  the  principle 
involved  and  its  application  to  New  Mexico  and  California ; 
for  they  determined  to  have  the  territory  which  had  been 
acquired  from  Mexico  dedicated  to  slavery.  But  at  the 
threshold  of  their  desire  they  found  an  inherent  obstacle. 
California  and  New  Mexico  were  free ;  and,  as  was  pointed 
out  during  the  senatorial  debate,  "  by  the  laws  of  nations, 
the  laws  of  all  conquered  countries  remain  until  changed 
by  the  conqueror.  There  is  an  express  law  containing  the 
prohibition  of  slavery  [in  California  and  New  Mexico]  and 
this  will  continue  until  we  shall  change  it."  *  Yet  the  closet 
theorist,  Calhoun,  was  equal  to  the  emergency,  and  he  had 
a  political  doctrine  to  fit  the  occasion.  Benton  called  it 
the  new  dogma  "  of  the  transmigratory  function  of  the 
Constitution,  and  the  instantaneous  transportation  of  itself 
in  its  slavery  attributes  into  all  acquired  territories."  Cal- 
houn denied  that  the  laws  of  Mexico  could  keep  slavery 
out  of  New  Mexico  and  California.  "  As  soon  as  the  treaty 
between  the  two  countries  is  ratified,"  said  he, "  the  sover- 
eignty and  authority  of  Mexico  in  the  territory  acquired  by 
it  become  extinct,  and  that  of  the  United  States  is  substi- 
tuted in  its  place,  carrying  with  it  the  Constitution,  with 
its  overriding  control  over  all  the  laws  and  institutions  of 
Mexico  inconsistent  with  it."a  The  Constitution  by  impli- 
cation recognized  slavery ;  therefore  it  permitted  slave-own- 
ers to  take  their  slaves  into  this  new  territory,  or,  in  other 
words,  it  legalized  slavery.3  As  a  necessary  deduction,  the 


1  Senator  Phelps,  of  Vermont. 

9  Niles's  Register,  vol.  Ixxiv.  p.  61 ;  Thirty  Years'  View,  vol.  ii.  p.  713. 
*  "  It  is  useless  to  prove  what  indeed  is  known  to  every  one  who  has 
bestowed  the  slightest  attention  to  it,  namely,  that  slavery  is  considered 


CH.I.]  SLAVERY   IN  THE   TERRITORIES  95 

senator  asserted  that  neither  Congress,  nor  the  inhabitants 
of  the  territories,  nor  the  territorial  legislature  have  the 
right  to  exclude  slavery  from  the  territories.  This  doc- 
trine was  completely  refuted  by  Webster  at  the  next  ses- 
sion of  Congress.  For  the  present  he  contented  himself  with 
a  passing  allusion ;  "  I  am  not  going  into  metaphysics," 
said  he,  "  for  therein  I  should  encounter  the  honorable  sen- 
ator from  South  Carolina,  and  we  should  find  •  no  end,  in 
wand'ring  mazes  lost.'  " 1 

It  is  indeed  wondrous  pitiful  to  contemplate  Calhoun, 
who  had  fine  ability  and  sterling  morality  in  private  life, 
thus  held  captive  by  one  idea,  and  that  idea  totally  at  vari- 
ance with  the  moral  sentiment  of  the  nineteenth  century.2 
In  other  service  he  would  have  been  a  useful  statesman,  but 
he  must  be  judged  by  the  fruits  of  his  two  favorite  dogmas, 
the  extreme  states-rights  theory  of  1832,  and  the  slavery- 
extension  doctrine  of  1848.  The  two,  thoroughly  dissem- 
inated throughout  the  South,  became  prime  elements  of 
political  faith.  Their  working  forced  her  onward  to  seces- 
sion, and  induced  a  proud,  high-spirited  people  to  battle 
for  an  idea  utterly  condemned  at  the  tribunal  of  modern 
civilization. 

The  debate  went  on  in  the  Senate  for  some  weeks,  and  as 
the  prospect  of  a  satisfactory  conclusion  seemed  remote,  the 
whole  matter  was  referred  to  a  special  committee.  They 
soon  reported  a  bill  through  their  chairman,  Clayton,  of 
Delaware,  which  provided  territorial  governments  for  Ore- 
gon, New  Mexico,  and  California.  The  legitimate  result  of 
the  bill  would  be  the  prohibition  of  slavery  in  Oregon,  but 


emphatically  and  exclusively  a  municipal  institution  by  all  countries  and 
jurists,  as  well  as  publicists,  European  and  American,  Northern  and 
Southern ;  a  truth — I  add  it  in  sorrow  and  deep  concern — which  you  are 
the  first  that  has  ever  denied." — Letter  of  Francis  Lieber  to  Calhoun, 
Life  and  Letters  of  Lieber,  p.  232. 

1  Webster's  Works,  vol.  v.  p.  308. 

3  So  confessed  by  his  eulogist,  Lamar,  in  an  address  at  Charleston, 
April,  1887. 


96  SLAVERY  IN  THE  TERRITORIES  [Ca  I 

the  question  whether  the  Constitution  permitted  slavery  in 
New  Mexico  and  California  was  to  be  referred  to  the  terri- 
torial courts,  with  the  right  of  appeal  to  the  United  States 
Supreme  Court.  As  Thomas  Corwin,  in  a  caustic  speech 
opposing  the  measure,  said,  "  It  does  not  enact  a  law ;  it 
only  enacts  a  lawsuit." '  The  bill  passed  the  Senate,  but 
was  immediately  laid  upon  the  table  in  the  House. 

Meanwhile  the  House  had  been  at  work  on  a  plan  for 
Oregon.  In  the  early  part  of  August,  its  bill  providing  a 
territorial  government  for  Oregon,  with  the  prohibition  of 
slavery,  passed.  In  the  Senate,  an  amendment  was  tacked 
to  it,  extending  the  Missouri  Compromise  line  to  the  Pacific 
Ocean.2  It  must  be  called  to  mind  that  the  Missouri  Com- 
promise, which  prohibited  slavery  north  of  36°  30'  north  lat- 
itude and  permitted  it  south  of  that  line,  only  applied  to  the 
Louisiana  purchase,  of  which  Oregon  was  not  a  part.  The 
purpose  in  view  Webster  well  expressed :  "  The  truth  is," 
said  he,  "that  it  is  an  amendment  by  which  the  Senate 
wishes  to  have  now  a  public  legal  declaration,  not  respect- 
ing Oregon,  but  respecting  the  newly  acquired  territories  of 
California  and  New  Mexico.  It  wishes  now  to  make  a  line 
of  slavery  which  shall  include  those  new  territories." 3  On 
a  previous  day  he  had  stated  that  "  his  objection  to  slavery 
was  irrespective  of  lines  and  points  of  latitude ;  it  took  in 
the  whole  country  and  the  whole  question.  He  was  op- 
posed to  it  in  every  shape  and  every  qualification  ;  and  was 
against  any  compromise  of  the  question." 4  The  bill  with 
the  amendment  passed  the  Senate ;  the  amendment  was  dis- 
agreed to  by  the  House ;  finally,  on  the  last  day  of  the  ses- 
sion, the  Senate  receded  from  its  amendment  and  enacted 
the  measure  establishing  a  territorial  government  for  Oregon, 
with  the  express  prohibition  of  slavery. 


1  Speeches,  p.  439. 

9  This  would  have  permitted  slavery  in  what  is  now  New  Mexico  and 
Arizona,  and  in  almost  the  southern  half  of  California. 
»  Works,  vol.  v.  p.  303. 
*  Congressional  Globe,  1st  Sess.,  30th  Cong.,  p.  1060. 


CH.I.J  SLAVERY  IN  THE  TERRITORIES  97 

While  Congress  was  wrangling  over  the  question,  the  two 
great  political  parties  made  their  nominations  for  President ; 
but  their  conventions  completely  ignored  the  vital  issue  of 
the  day.  The  Democratic  party  chose  General  Cass  as  its 
candidate,  and  adopted  a  long  series  of  resolutions,  touching 
upon  every  conceivable  subject  save  only  the  question  of 
slavery  in  the  territories.  The  Whig  convention  nominated 
General  Taylor,  but  adopted  no  resolutions  and  issued  no 
address.  The  candidate  was  the  platform.  Later,  a  con- 
vention was  held  at  Buffalo,  composed  of  those  who  were 
dissatisfied  with  the  action  of  both  the  great  parties  and 
opposed  to  the  extension  of  slavery.  Van  Buren  was  nom- 
inated for  President.  The  resolutions  declared  it  to  be  the 
duty  of  the  federal  government  to  abolish  slavery  wherever 
it  had  the  constitutional  power ;  and  that  the  true  and  only 
safe  means  of  preventing  the  existence  of  slavery  in  terri- 
tory still  free  was  by  congressional  action.  The  selection  of 
Martin  Van  Buren  to  head  an  anti-slavery  movement  par- 
took of  the  grotesque.  The  enthusiasm  with  which  sincere 
anti-slavery  men  rallied  to  his  support  was  singular,  when 
we  call  to  mind  that  some  years  previously  he  had  been  de- 
nounced as  a  "  Northern  man  with  Southern  principles." 
Yan  Buren's  candidature  did  the  Democrats  more  harm 
than  the  Whigs,  and  particularly  in  the  State  of  New  York. 
That  state  decided  the  election,  as  it  had  done  four  years 
previously.  Yan  Buren  polled  more  votes  than  Cass,  and 
the  two  together  sixteen  thousand  more  than  Taylor.  Tay- 
lor had,  however,  the  electoral  vote  of  the  state  by  a  hand- 
some plurality,  and  was  chosen  President. 

On  the  assembling  of  Congress  in  December  of  this  year 
(1848),  President  Polk  strongly  urged  the  necessity  of  provid- 
ing territorial  governments  for  New  Mexico  and  California. 
He  favored  as  a  fair  settlement  the  extension  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise  line  to  the  Pacific.  More  than  one  attempt 
was  made  by  Congress  to  dispose  of  the  matter,  but  the  only 
measure  which  passed  the  Senate  was  an  amendment  to  the 
general  appropriation  bill  providing  for  the  extension  of  the 
L— 7 


98  SLAVERY  IN  THE  TERRITORIES  [On.  L 

Constitution  to  the  territories.  The  consideration  of  this 
amendment  gave  rise  to  an  important  debate  in  which  Web- 
ster and  Calhoun  were  prominent.1  Calhoun  elaborated  and 
explained  the  theory  he  had  set  forth  at  the  previous  session ; 
but  Webster,  by  a  few  trenchant  questions  and  the  assertion 
of  some  patent  truths,  showed  plainly  that  the  idea  was  im- 
practicable, and  completely  at  variance  with  our  legislative 
precedents  and  judicial  decisions.  The  House  would  not 
agree  with  the  Senate ;  and  as  the  amendment  was  tacked 
to  the  general  appropriation  bill,  scenes  of  great  excitement 
were  common  during  the  closing  days  of  the  session.  Hor- 
ace Mann,  then  a  representative,  wrote  that  blows  were  ex- 
changed in  the  Senate,  and  two  fist-fights  took  place  in  the 
House,  in  one  of  which  blood  flowed  freely ;  and  he  expressed 
the  opinion  that  "  had  the  North  been  as  ferocious  as  the 
South,  it  is  probable  there  would  have  been  a  general 
melee."3  Finally,  however,  the  Senate  receded  from  its 
amendment  and  passed  the  appropriation  bill.  The  session 
came  to  an  end,  but  nothing  had  been  done  towards  the  or- 
ganization of  governments  for  the  territories.  This  and  the 
allied  question  of  slavery  were  left  as  a  legacy  to  the  new 
Congress.  The  necessary  executive  measures  meanwhile 
devolved  upon  the  new  President,  a  man  who  came  to  the 
highest  office  of  the  state  unversed  in  civil  affairs,  and  untried 
in  their  orderly  administration. 


1  This  debate  may  be  found  in  Curtis,  vol.  ii.  p.  364. 

2  Quoted  by  Von  Hoist,  vol.  iii.  p.  454. 

NOTE  TO  PAGE  29,  written  in  November,  1909.  —  Miss  Alice  Dana  Adams, 
in  "The  Neglected  Period  of  Anti-Slavery  in  America,"  Radcliffe  College 
Monographs  No.  14,  shows  that  my  statement  regarding  the  conventions, 
meetings  and  societies  needs  some  modification. 


CHAPTER   II 

ZACHAKY  TAYLOR  was  inaugurated  March  5th,  1849.  He 
was  sincerely  honest,  a  man  of  good  judgment,  pure  morals, 
great  energy,  of  independent  and  manly  character,  and  pos- 
sessed rare  moral  as  well  as  physical  courage.  He  had  little 
education  and  many  prejudices.  But  he  was  in  every  sense 
of  the  word  a  patriot  and  nothing  of  a  partisan.  Doubt  had 
for  a  time,  indeed,  prevailed  regarding  his  political  opinions, 
for  he  had  never  voted.  The  party  managers  induced  him 
to  say,  finally,  that  he  was  a  Whig ;  but  General  Taylor  at 
the  same  time  insisted  that  if  elected  "  he  would  not  be  the 
President  of  a  party,  but  the  President  of  the  whole  people." 

He  was,  as  we  have  seen,  nominated  by  the  regular  Whig 
convention ;  but  while  the  campaign  was  in  progress  he  had 
discomfited  his  Northern  adherents  by  accepting  the  nomina- 
tion of  a  Democratic  meeting  at  Charleston,  which  preferred 
him  to  Cass,  as  he  was  deemed  safer  on  the  slavery  question. 
Taylor  was  from  Louisiana,  and  owned  a  large  sugar  plan- 
tation there,  with  several  hundred  slaves.  As  the  Whig  con- 
vention had  adopted  no  declaration  of  principles,  what  course 
the  newly-elected  President  would  take  on  the  question  of 
slavery  in  the  territories  was  problematical.  It  had,  how- 
ever, been  asserted  with  confidence  at  the  North  during  the 
campaign  that  he  would  not  veto  any  anti-slavery  legisla- 
tion which  should  receive  the  assent  of  Congress.  While 
the  President,  in  his  inaugural  address,  did  not  touch  upon 
the  question  which  had  distracted  the  legislature  of  the  coun- 
try, nevertheless  his  guarded  expressions  seemed  to  indicate 
that  his  Northern  supporters  had  fairly  outlined  his  policy. 


100  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1849 

But  his  cabinet  appointments  were  favorable  to  the  Southern 
section  of  his  party ;  four  of  them  were  from  the  slave  and 
three  from  the  free  States.  The  prominent  members  were 
John  M.  Clayton,  of  Delaware,  Secretary  of  State  ;  Thomas 
Ewing,of  Ohio,  Secretary  of  the  Interior ;  Reverdy  Johnson, 
of  Maryland,  Attorney-General ;  and  Jacob  Collainer,  of  Ver- 
mont, Postmaster-General.  Collainer  was  the  only  man  of 
marked  anti-slavery  sentiments.1 

The  problem  which  the  country  had  to  solve  called  for 
its  wisest  statesmanship.  It  demanded  the  full  measure  of 
the  time  and  ability  of  the  President  and  his  advisers,  but 
they  were  not  able  to  devote  their  attention  immediately 
to  the  exigency  of  the  State.  The  executive  power  had 
passed  from  one  political  party  to  the  other;  the  Demo- 
crats, therefore,  must  be  turned  out  of  the  offices  to  make 
room  for  the  faithful  Whigs.  "  To  the  victors  belong  the 
spoils"  was  a  doctrine  first  put  in  practice  by  the  Demo- 
cratic party.  But  the  Whigs  were  apt  pupils,  and  as  there 
were  about  fifty  thousand  places  in  the  civil  service,2  a  horde 
of  hungry  office-seekers  flocked  to  Washington.  General 
Taylor  was  a  man  of  business  habits.  His  long  service  in 
the  army,  and  his  experience  in  the  management  of  a  large 
plantation,  had  taught  him  that  merit  and  fitness  were  the 
proper  and  only  tests  that  should  be  applied  to  subordi- 
nates, and  his  mind  was  still  firm  in  this  conviction  when 
he  delivered  his  inaugural  address.  He  said :  "  I  shall 
make  honesty,  capacity,  and  fidelity  indispensable  prerequi- 
sites to  the  bestowal  of  office." 8  Although  the  President 
had  good  business  ideas,  he  was  ignorant  of  party  manage- 
ment, and  soon  allowed  himself  to  be  guided  by  those  who 
had  all  their  lives  wrought  in  the  sphere  of  practical  poll- 


1  The  other  members  of  the  cabinet  were  Meredith  of  Pennsylvania,  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury  ;  Crawford  of  Georgia,  Secretary  of  War ;  and  Pres- 
ton of  Virginia,  Secretary  of  the  Navy.    Meredith  was  strongly  anti-slavery. 

2  New  York  Tribune,  April,  1849. 
»  Niles,  vol.  Ixxv.  p.  150. 


CH.  II.]  "TO   THE  VICTORS  BELONG  THE   SPOILS"  1Q1 

tics.  General  Taylor  had  a  high  respect  for  the  Vice- 
President,  Millard  Fillmore,  of  New  York,  and,  until  unde- 
ceived a  short  time  before  his  arrival  at  Washington,  he 
thought  that  the  Vice-President  could  be  ex  qfficio  a  member 
of  his  cabinet.1  He  was  nevertheless  disposed  to  rely  upon 
the  experience  of  Fillmore  in  all  important  matters,  and 
nothing  at  first  seemed  so  important  as  the  New  York  pat- 
ronage. But  in  this  State  there  were  two  divisions  of  the 
Whig  party,  one  headed  by  Fillmore  and  the  other  by  Will- 
iam H.  Seward,  who  had  recently  been  elected  to  the  Sen- 
ate ;  and,  to  forestall  differences  that  might  naturally  arise, 
Thurlow  Weed,  a  common  friend,  had  them  both  dine  with 
him  at  Albany  when  they  were  on  their  way  to  Washing- 
ton. "  Here,"  as  Weed  himself  relates,  "  everything  was 
pleasantly  arranged.  The  Yice-President  and  the  Senator 
were  to  consult  from  time  to  time,  as  should  become  nec- 
essary, and  agree  upon  the  important  appointments  to  be 
made  in  our  State." a  Fillmore,  however,  seems  to  have  had 
the  better  of  the  arrangement ;  for  the  first  knowledge  that 
came  to  Seward  of  the  New  York  custom-house  appoint- 
ments was  when  their  names  were  read  in  executive  session 
of  the  Senate.3 

The  President  also  appointed  anti-Seward  Whigs  to  othe* 
lucrative  offices  in  the  State.  Seward,  as  Lincoln  afterwards 
said,  "  was  a  man  without  gall," 4  and  did  not  openly  resent 
the  infraction  of  the  agreement.  He  did  not  retire  to  his 
tent,  but  patiently  bided  his  time.  He  voted  for  the  con- 
firmation of  his  adversaries,  and  then  went  to  work  with 
serenity  to  supplant  his  rival  in  the  favor  of  the  President.6 


1  Thurlow  Weed's  Autobiography,  p.  586. 
8  Ibid.,  p.  586. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  587 ;  see  also  letters  of  Seward  to  Weed,  March  1st  and  10th, 
Life  of  Seward,  F.  W.  Seward,  vol.  ii.  pp.  101, 107. 

4  Life,  by  Nicolay  and  Hay,  Century  Magazine,  vol.  xxxii.  p.  562. 

•  See  letter  of  Seward  to  Weed,  March  24th,  Life  of  Seward,  F.  W.  Sew- 
ard, vol.  ii.  p.  107. 


102  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1849 

In  this  he  was  much  assisted  by  his  friend  "Weed,  who  had 
great  influence,  for  he  was  one  of  the  first  to  look  to  Gen- 
eral Taylor  as  a  presidential  candidate.  Their  efforts  were 
successful,  and  soon  Seward  became  the  directing  spirit  of 
the  administration. 

Thurlow  Weed  relates  with  great  satisfaction  that  the 
President  "became  convinced  that  the  significance  of  a 
zealous  and  patriotic  movement  of  the  people,  which  over- 
threw Democratic  supremacy,  meant  something  more  than 
the  election  of  a  Whig  President  and  the  appointment  of 
a  Whig  cabinet."  "  I  did  not  think  it  wise  or  just,"  the 
President  himself  remarked,  "  to  kick  away  the  ladder  by 
which  I  ascended  to  the  presidency ;  colonels,  majors,  cap- 
tains, lieutenants,  sergeants,  and  corporals  are  just  as  neces- 
sary to  success  in  politics  as  they  are  to  the  discipline  and 
efficiency  of  an  army."  On  another  occasion  the  President 
inquired  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  "  whether  you 
think  our  friends  are  getting  their  share  of  the  offices." 
The  Secretary  answered  that  he  "  had  not  thought  of  the 
matter  in  that  light."  "  Nor,"  rejoined  the  President, 
"  have  I  until  recently.  But  if  the  country  is  to  be  bene- 
fited by  our  services,  it  seems  to  me  that  you  and  I  ought 
to  remember  those  to  whose  zeal,  activity,  and  influence 
we  are  indebted  for  our  places.  There  are  plenty  of  Whigs, 
just  as  capable  and  honest,  and  quite  as  deserving  of  office, 
as  the  Democrats  who  have  held  them  through  two  or  three 
presidential  terms.  Eotation  in  office,  provided  good  men 
are  appointed,  is  sound  Kepublican  doctrine." ' 

The  Democratic  newspapers  of  the  day  are  full  of  derisive 
taunts  at  the  wholesale  removals  from  office.  The  Whigs 
either  defended  them  as  the  work  of  reform,2  or  else  retorted 
by  recriminations.  Yet  many  of  the  leading  Whigs  were 
far  from  being  satisfied.  Clay  complained  that  the  good 
positions  went  to  those  who  had  been  instrumental  in  bring- 


1  Life  of  Thurlow  Weed,  vol.  ii.  pp.  175, 176. 

*  This  is  the  expression  of  the  New  York  Tribune,  April  17th,  1849. 


CH.II.]  TAYLOR'S  IDEAS  OF  THE  CIVIL  SERVICE  1Q3 

ing  about  the  nomination  of  General  Taylor,1  and  Webster 
grieved  bitterly  over  the  refusal  of  the  administration  to 
grant  his  request  for  an  office  of  "  small  pecuniary  considera- 
tion" for  his  only  son.3  Abraham  Lincoln  was  an  urgent 
applicant  for  the  office  of  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land 
Office.  He  solicited  support  from  his  late  friends  in  Con- 
gress, and  endeavored  to  have  his  claim  advocated  in  the 
party  newspapers,  but  his  efforts  were  without  fruit.3  The 
Postmaster-General  Collamer,  in  a  letter  to  his  friend  John 
J.  Crittenden,  laments  not  having  been  able  to  carry  out 
Crittenden's  wishes  in  reference  to  the  appointment  of  the 
local  mail  agent  at  Louisville.  But  the  President  had  taken 
the  matter  out  of  his  hands,  and  as  he  was  "  but  a  subal- 
tern," he  had  to  obey.4  The  Secretary  of  State  found  fault 
with  Collamer,  and  wrote :  "  Our  friend  Collamer  is  behind ; 
he  is  a  glorious  fellow,  but  too  tender  for  progress.  He  has 
been  often,  indeed,  at  his  wits'  end,  frightened  about  re- 
movals and  appointments,  but  I  cry  courage  to  them  all, 
and  they  will  go  ahead  all,  by  and  by !  Taylor  has  all  the 
moral  as  well  as  physical  courage  needed  for  the  emer- 
gency."5 Yet  the  President,  whose  knowledge  of  litera- 
ture went  not  "  much  beyond  good  old  Dilworth's  spelling- 
book,"  6  unwittingly  did  the  cause  of  letters  a  great  service 
in  the  removal  of  Nathaniel  Hawthorne  from  the  survey- 
orship  of  the  Salem  custom-house,  for  on  the  afternoon 
of  the  day  on  which  the  gifted  author  was  deprived  of  his 


1  Clay's  Private  Correspondence,  p.  587.     "  It  is  undeniable  that  the 
public  patronage  has  been  too  exclusively  confined  to  the  original  sup- 
porters of  General  Taylor,  without  sufficient  regard  to  the  merits  and 
just  claims  of  the  great  body  of  the  Whig  party." 

2  Harvey's  Reminiscences,  p.  178.    The  President  later  gave  Webster's 
son, "  though  after  delay  and  hesitation,"  "  a  lucrative  office,"  Schouler, 
vol.  v.  p.  150. 

3  Lamon,  p.  333. 

4  Life  of  Crittenden,  Coleman,  vol.  i.  p.  346. 

5  Ibid.,  p.  344. 

6  Autobiography  of  Lieutenant-General  Scott,  vol.  ii.  p.  383. 


104  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1841 

place  he  began  to  write  "  The  Scarlet  Letter." !  He  lost 
his  salary  of  twelve  hundred  dollars  a  year,  but  he  gave  to 
his  country  its  greatest  romance.2 

While  Congress  was  still  in  session  Calhoun  was  busy  in 
working  up  a  sentiment  that  should  fire  the  Southern  heart 
with  zeal  to  defend  the  rights  which  were  in  supposed  jeop- 
ardy. A  convention  of  Southern  members  of  Congress  is- 
sued an  address  drawn  up  by  Calhoun.  In  this  declaration 
they  complained  of  the  difficulties  in  recovering  fugitive 
slaves ;  they  found  fault  with  the  systematic  agitation  of 


1  Hawthorne  and  his  Wife,  Julian  Hawthorne,  vol.  i.  p.  340. 

a  Hawthorne  describes  the  enormous  specimen  of  the  American  eagle 
"  which  hovers  over  the  entrance  of  the  custom-house,"  and  which  "  ap- 
pears by  the  fierceness  of  her  beak  and  eye,  and  the  general  tendency  of 
her  attitude,  to  threaten  mischief  to  the  unoffensive  community."  "  Nev- 
ertheless, vixenly  as  she  looks,  many  people  are  seeking,  at  this  very  mo- 
ment, to  shelter  themselves  under  the  wing  of  the  Federal  eagle;  imagin- 
ing, I  presume,  that  her  bosom  has  all  the  softness  and  snugness  of  an 
eider-down  pillow.  But  she  has  no  great  tenderness,  even  in  her  best 
of  moods,  and,  sooner  or  later — oftener  soon  than  late — is  apt  to  fling  off 
her  nestlings,  with  a  scratch  of  her  claw,  a  dab  of  her  beak,  or  a  rank- 
ling wound  from  her  barbed  arrows.  .  .  .  But  now,  should  you  go  thither 
to  seek  him,  you  would  inquire  in  vain  for  the  Locofoco  surveyor.  The 
besom  of  reform  has  swept  him  out  of  office ;  and  a  worthier  successor 
wears  his  dignity  and  pockets  his  emoluments.  ...  A  remarkable  event 
of  the  third  year  of  my  surveyorship  was  the  election  of  General  Taylor 
to  the  presidency.  It  is  essential,  in  order  to  a  complete  estimate  of  the 
advantages  of  official  life,  to  view  the  incumbent  at  the  incoming  of  a 
hostile  administration.  His  position  is  then  one  of  the  most  singularly 
irksome,  and,  in  every  contingency,  disagreeable,  that  a  wretched  mortal 
can  possibly  occupy  ;  with  seldom  an  alternative  of  good  on  either  hand, 
although  what  presents  itself  to  him  as  the  worst  event  may  very  prob- 
ably be  the  best."  Hawthorne  wrote  more  truly  than  he  then  knew.  He 
felt  his  removal  from  office  keenly.  The  letter  pleading  for  Hillard's  in- 
fluence in  favor  of  the  retention  of  his  office,  his  lamentation  at  being 
turned  out,  his  appeal  for  re-appointment,  with  the  assignment  of  cate- 
gorical reasons  why  he  should  not  have  been  proscribed  by  the  Whig 
administration,  are  pathetic,  and  make  an  exquisitely  phrased  condemna- 
tion of  the  spoils  system.  See  letters  to  Hillard,  Life  of  Hawthorne, 
Conway,  p.  111. 


CalL]  SOUTHERN  SENTIMENT  105 

the  slavery  question  by  the  abolitionists;  they  demanded 
the  right  of  emigrating  into  the  territories  with  their  slaves ; 
and  they  inveighed  bitterly  against  the  House  for  its  ac- 
tion in  regard  to  New  Mexico  and  California.  More  than 
eighty  members  participated  in  the  meeting  when  this  ad- 
dress was  adopted,  but  only  about  half  of  that  number 
affixed  their  signatures  to  the  instrument.  It  was  pub- 
lished throughout  the  South  with  a  flourish  of  trumpets ; 
and  soon  it  was  hailed  by  its  authors  as  the  second  declara- 
tion of  independence.1  Except  in  South  Carolina,  how- 
ever, the  address  did  not  make  a  deep  impression.2  For 
the  moment  Calhoun  seemed  to  have  lost  influence.  His 
intellectual  vagaries  had  become  tiresome,  and  his  over- 
refinement  of  phrase  proved  tedious  even  to  those  whose 
sympathy  was  ardent  with  the  Southern  cause. 

Of  greater  moment  were  the  resolutions  of  the  Virginia 
legislature.  They  affirmed  that  "  the  adoption  and  at- 
tempted enforcement  of  the  Wilmot  proviso"  would  pre- 
sent two  alternatives  to  the  people  of  Virginia ;  one  of  "  ab- 
ject submission  to  aggression  and  outrage,"  and  the  other 
"  of  determined  resistance  at  all  hazards  and  to  the  last  ex- 
tremity." 3  The  sovereign  people  of  Virginia,  as  they  valued 
their  rights  of  property  and  dearest  privileges,  could  have 
no  difficulty  in  making  a  choice  between  the  two  alterna- 
tives. It  was  likewise  resolved  that  the  abolition  of  slavery 
or  of  the  slave-trade  in  the  District  of  Columbia  would  be 
a  direct  attack  upon  the  institution  of  the  Southern  States. 
These  resolutions  were  carried  by  a  large  majority ;  and 
this  official  utterance  cf  the  most  powerful  State  in  the 
South  was  an  incitement  to  Southern  feeling  and  a  guide  to 
the  way  of  evincing  it.  The  resolutions  were  approved  at 
many  public  meetings  held  all  over  the  South ;  they  were 
endorsed  by  several  Democratic  state  conventions ;  and  they 


1  Benton's  Thirty  Years'  View,  vol.  ii.  p.  734. 
3  New-Englander,  Aug.,  1849. 
*  Niles,  vol.  Ixxv,  p.  73. 


106  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1849 

formed  the  basis  of  similar  expressions  from  other  legisla- 
tures. 

The  excitement  was  especially  great  in  Missouri.  The 
legislature  of  this  State  had  passed  resolutions  protesting 
against  the  principle  of  the  Wilmot  proviso,  and  instructing 
her  senators  and  representatives  to  act  in  hearty  co-opera- 
tion with  the  members  from  the  slave-holding  States.1  This 
was  a  shaft  aimed  at  Senator  Benton,  who  was  opposed  to 
the  extension  of  slavery.  He  accepted  the  challenge,  re- 
paired to  Missouri  when  the  Senate  adjourned,  and  made  a 
noble  fight  against  the  slavery  extensionists.  He  spoke  at 
meeting  after  meeting,  defending  his  own  course  and  mak- 
ing an  aggressive  warfare  on  Calhoun  and  his  Missouri  dis- 
ciples. 

The  feeling  was  at  fever  heat  in  Tennessee.  The  address 
of  the  Democratic  State  Central  Committee  to  the  voters 
said,  "  The  encroachments  of  our  Northern  brethren  have 
reached  a  point  where  forbearance  on  our  part  ceases  to  be 
a  virtue." a  In  Kentucky,  Clay  had  written  a  letter  intended 
to  influence  the  constitutional  convention  about  to  assem- 
ble, in  which  he  favored  a  plan  of  gradual  emancipation  of 
the  slaves  in  his  State.  A  people's  meeting  held  in  Trimble 
County,  Ky.,  requested  him  to  resign  his  place  as  sen- 
ator in  consequence  of  the  sentiments  avouched  in  this  let- 
ter.8 The  question  of  freeing  the  slaves  was  made  an  issue 
and  discussed  in  every  county  of  the  State,  but  not  one 
avowed  emancipationist  was  elected  to  the  convention.  The 
convention  itself  not  only  failed  to  adopt  any  plan  of  grad- 
ual emancipation,  but,  on  the  contrary,  the  new  constitution 
asserted,  in  the  strongest  terms,  the  right  of  property  in 
slaves  and  their  increase. 

In  the  cotton  States  the  feeling  was  more  intense  than  in 
the  border  States.  The  Virginia  resolutions  were  every- 
where endorsed.  The  prevailing  sentiment  of  South  Caro- 
lina was  shown  at  a  dinner  to  Senator  Butler,  when  "  Slav- 


1  Niles,  voL  Ixxv.  p.  270.  •  Ibid.,  p.  373.  » Ibid.,  p.  384. 


Call.]  NORTHERN   SENTIMENT  107 

ery,"  "  Our  territorial  acquisitions  from  Mexico,"  and  "  A 
Southern  Confederacy"  were  toasted  amid  great  enthusi- 
asm.1 The  Democrats  were  more  outspoken  than  the  Whigs, 
but  party  lines  were  beginning  to  be  merged  and  swallowed 
up  in  the  community  of  sectional  interest.  Yet  the  North- 
ern Whigs  tried  to  think  that  they  and  the  Southern  mem- 
bers of  their  party  could  meet  on  common  ground.  The 
New  York  Tribune  maintained  that  "the  Southern  Whigs 
want  the  great  question  settled  in  such  a  manner  as  shall 
not  humble  and  exasperate  the  South ;  the  Southern  Loco- 
focos  [i.  e.  Democrats]  want  it  so  settled  as  to  conduce  to 
the  extension  of  the  power  and  influence  of  slavery."  *  But, 
in  truth,  when  a  question  of  practical  legislation  arose,  the 
interest  of  section  was  stronger  than  the  hold  of  party. 

The  feeling  in  the  North  was  as  deeply  stirred  as  in  the 
South.  The  conflict  of  sentiment  was  well  shown  in  the 
reception  given  to  the  letter  of  Clay  which  favored  the  grad- 
ual emancipation  of  the  slaves  in  Kentucky.  In  the  North 
it  was  universally  approved ;  in  the  South,  outside  of  his 
own  State,  it  was  just  as  emphatically  condemned.  Every 
one  of  the  legislatures  of  the  free  States,  except  Iowa,3 
passed  resolutions  to  the  effect  that  Congress  had  the  power, 
and  that  it  was  its  duty,  to  prohibit  slavery  in  the  territories.4 
Many  States  also  requested  their  senators  and  representa- 
tives to  use  their  utmost  influence  to  abolish  slavery  and 
the  slave-trade  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  Party  lines 
were  not  considered ;  they  had  no  influence  upon  this  action. 
Some  of  the  legislatures  were  strongly  Whig ;  in  others  the 
Democrats  were  greatly  in  the  ascendant.  But  the  parties 
seemed  to  vie  with  each  other  in  taking  advanced  anti-slav- 


1  New  York  Tribune,  April  25th,  1849. 

9  Ibid.,  Oct.  24th,  1849. 

8  In  Iowa  instructions  to  her  senators  and  representatives  to  vote  for 
the  Wilmot  proviso  passed  the  State  Senate,  but  were  laid  upon  the  table 
in  the  House. — Niles,  vol.  Ixxv.  p.  113. 

4  New  York  Tribune,  July  23d,  1849. 


108  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1841 

ery  ground,  and  in  some  of  the  legislatures  the  resolutions 
were  passed  by  a  nearly  unanimous  vote.1  As  a  body,  the 
Whigs  were  more  pronounced  in  their  views  than  were  the 
regular  Democrats.  Greeley  maintained  that  the  Whigs  of 
New  York  State  recognized  "  the  restriction  of  slavery  with- 
in its  present  limits  as  one  of  the  cardinal  principles  of  our 
political  faith ;" a  but  the  Free-soilers,  comprising  for  the  most 
part  those  who  had  supported  Yan  Buren  the  previous  year, 
were  strenuous  in  their  demands  that  the  general  govern- 
ment should  forbid  slavery  where  it  had  the  power.  Charles 
Sumner  came  to  the  front  in  a  Free-soil  convention  at  Wor- 
cester, Mass.,  and  wrote  the  vigorous  address  which  pro- 
claimed "  opposition  to  slavery  wherever  we  are  responsible 
for  it,"  demanded  its  prohibition  in  the  new  territories,  and 
its  abolition  in  the  District  of  Columbia.3  The  Democrats 
of  Ohio  felt  very  powerfully  the  impulse  of  the  anti-slavery 
movement,  and  in  February  the  legislature,  by  a  combina- 
tion of  two  Free-soilers,  who  held  the  balance  of  power,  with 
the  Democrats,  elected  Salmon  P.  Chase  to  the  United  States 
Senate.  He  was  a  strong  opposer  of  slavery ;  was  of  par- 
tially Democratic  antecedents,  and  had  presided  over  the 
Free-soil  convention  which  nominated  Yan  Buren  for  the 
presidency.  At  Cleveland  an  enthusiastic  convention  of 
Free-soilers  was  held  on  the  13th  of  July  to  celebrate  the 
passage  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787.  Clay  was  invited  to 
be  present,  but  declined  on  account  of  other  engagements ; 
he  seemed  to  think,  however,  that  the  commemoration  was 
ill-timed  as  being  liable  "  to  increase  the  prevailing  excite- 
ment." * 

General  Cass  tried  to  stem  the  current  of  popular  opinion 
in  the  West.  He  held  that  Congress  had  no  right  to  legis- 
late upon  slavery  in  the  territories ;  and,  while  the  legislate 


1  Niles,  vol.  Ixxv.  pp.  190,  239,  399. 

»  New  York  Tribune,  Oct.  3d,  1849. 

»  Life  and  Public  Services  of  Charles  Sumner,  Lester,  p.  67. 

4  Washington  National  Intelligencer,  July  21st,  1849. 


CH.H.]  NORTHERN  SENTIMENT  109 

ure  of  Michigan  elected  him  to  the  Senate — for  they  could 
not  forget  the  part  he  had  played  in  the  material  develop- 
ment and  civil  organization  of  their  State — yet  the  same 
body  of  men  resolved  that  Congress  ought  to  prohibit  slav- 
ery in  New  Mexico  and  California.  The  Cleveland  Plain 
Dealer,  which  had  loyally  supported  Cass  for  President,  ex- 
pressed the  opinion  of  the  majority  of  Ohio  Democrats 
when  it  declared  that  "  the  institution  of  slavery  is  bound 
to  be  the  death  of  Democracy  in  this  country,  unless  the 
Democratic  party  as  a  body  eschew  its  requirements."  * 

The  position  which  President  Taylor  was  gradually  tak- 
ing proved  a  source  of  gratification  to  the  anti-slavery  peo- 
ple. When  he  came  to  Washington  his  Southern  sympa- 
thies were  strong,  and  he  had  the  notion  that  the  Northern- 
ers were  encroaching  on  the  rights  of  the  South.  A  short 
experience  in  the  executive  office  served  to  convince  him 
that  the  encroachment  was  from  the  opposite  direction,  and 
he  had  the  manliness  to  act  contrary  to  the  supposed  inter- 
ests of  his  own  section.  The  influence  of  Seward,  moreover, 
was  a  potent  factor  in  the  President's  actual  envisagement 
of  the  situation.  Complaint  had  been  made  at  the  South 
that  a  majority  of  the  cabinet  were  in  favor  of  the  princi- 
ple of  the  Wilmot  proviso;  and  this  dissatisfaction  was 
heightened  by  a  speech  of  the  President  at  Mercer,  Pa.,  in 
August,  when  he  said :  "  The  people  of  the  North  need  have 
no  apprehension  of  the  further  extension  of  slavery;  the  ne- 
cessity of  a  third  party  organization  on  this  score  would  soon 
be  obviated." a  State  and  congressional  elections  took  place 
during  the  spring,  summer,  and  fall,  but  they  afforded  no  in- 
dication of  the  direction  of  popular  sentiment.  On  the  whole, 
the  Whigs  lost  some  advantages  as  compared  with  the  Pres- 
idential election.  Party  divisions  were  rigidly  observed, 
but  the  slavery  question  was  nowhere  at  issue  in  any  of  the 
States  at  the  North.  The  Yan  Buren  and  the  Cass  Demo* 


1  Cleveland  Plain  Dealer,  May  16th,  1849. 
*  New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  10th,  1849. 


HO  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1849 

crats  had  generally  united  on  the  State  tickets — in  some 
States  on  an  anti-slavery  platform,  in  others  by  ignoring  the 
national  question.  The  New  York  Tribitne,  however,  ex- 
plained that  the  result  of  the  elections  in  Tennessee  and 
Kentucky  was  due  to  the  fact  that  the  "Whigs  "  were  cried 
down  in  those  States  as  an  anti-slavery  party." '  It  is  indubi- 
table that  the  Northern  sentiment  was  wholesome  and  thor- 
oughly imbued  with  the  desire  to  check  the  extension  of 
slavery. 

Towards  the  latter  part  of  the  year  speculations  as  to  the 
action  of  Congress  began  to  be  made ;  the  opinion  prevailed 
that  at  the  next  session  the  question  would  be  settled,  and 
there  was  little  doubt  of  its  settlement  in  a  manner  that 
would  satisfy  Northern  sentiment.  It  seemed  as  if  this  feel- 
ing needed  only  discretion  in  its  guidance,  and  nerve  in  the 
assertion  of  its  claims,  to  become  embodied  in  legislative  acts 
that  should  fix  the  vital  principle  at  issue. 

Meanwhile,  from  action  which  was  taking  place  in  Cal- 
ifornia, one  bone  of  contention  seemed  likely  to  be  removed. 
After  this  territory  had  been  taken  possession  of  by  the 
Americans,  it  was  placed  under  a  quasi-military  government, 
and  this  was  continued  after  the  treaty  of  peace  was  pro- 
claimed.2 Before  his  inauguration  General  Taylor  had  been 
anxious  that  Congress  should  decide  upon  some  plan  of 
government  for  California ;  he  said  that  "  he  desired  to  sub- 
stitute the  rule  of  law  and  order  there  for  the  bowie-knife 
and  revolvers." 8  A  month  after  his  inauguration  he  sent  T. 
Butler  King,  a  "Whig  congressman  from  Georgia,  to  Califor- 
nia, as  a  confidential  agent  of  the  administration,  to  assist  the 
growing  movement  towards  the  formation  of  a  State  govern- 
ment, and  to  work  in  conjunction  with  the  military  governor. 
California,  which,  when  acquired,  had  been  deemed  an  in- 
significant province,  had  now  become  the  El  Dorado  of  the 


1  New  York  Tribune,  Sept.,  1849. 

*  History  of  the  Pacific  States,  H.  H.  Bancroft,  vol.  xviii.  p.  262. 

»  Seward's  Works,  voL  iii.  p.  444. 


CH.  II.]  CALIFORNIA  HI 

world.  JSTine  days  before  the  treaty  of  peace  between  the 
United  States  and  Mexico  was  signed,1  gold  was  discovered 
in  the  foot-hills  of  the  Sierras.  Only  a  few  persons  in  Cal- 
ifornia were  aware  of  the  find,  and  none  in  the  United  States 
or  Mexico  knew  of  it  when  the  treaty  was  ratified.  "  The 
accursed  thirst  of  gold  "  was  to  work  out  the  destiny  of  this 
territory;  but  it  was  not  until  well  into  May,  1848,  that 
scepticism  in  San  Francisco  gave  way  to  faith  in  this  dis- 
covery. By  the  middle  of  the  summer  the  news  was  be- 
lieved everywhere,  and  from  all  parts  people  flocked  to 
the  gold  diggings.  When  it  became  known  at  Monterey, 
Colton  relates  that  every  one  began  to  make  preparations  to 
go  to  the  mines.  Blacksmiths,  carpenters,  masons,  farmers, 
bakers,  tapsters,  boarding-house  keepers,  soldiers,  and  do- 
mestics— all  left  their  occupations.  That  writer,  who  was 
the  alcalde  of  Monterey,  reports  that  he  only  had  a  com- 
munity of  women  left,  a  gang  of  prisoners,  and  a  few  sol- 
diers.2 So  it  was  everywhere  in  the  territory.  The  coun- 
try was  in  a  state  of  frenzy.  The  hunger  of  wealth  had 
taken  hold  of  the  whole  population.  Laborers  demanded 
ten  dollars  a  day  and  carpenters  sixteen  dollars.3  Privates 
from  the  army  and  sailors  from  the  naval  ships  deserted  and 
repaired  to  the  gold  diggings.  A  private  could  make  more 
money  in  the  mines  in  a  day  than  he  received  in  the  service 
in  a  month.4 

At  that  time  it  required  about  forty  days  for  the  trans- 
mission of  the  mails  from  San  Francisco  to  New  York.  The 
fabulous  stories  were  at  first  doubted  in  the  eastern  part  of 
the  country,  but  were  soon  accepted  with  fervid  belief.  The 
news  had  soon  reached  all  parts  of  the  civilized  world,  and 


1  Jan.  24th,  1848. 

3  Three  years  in  California,  Colton,  p.  247.  "  A  general  of  the  U.  S. 
Army,  the  commander  of  a  man-of-war,  and  Alcalde  of  Monterey,  in  a 
smoking  kitchen,  grinding  coffee,  toasting  a  herring,  and  peeling  onions  In 
—Ibid.,  p.  248. 

8  Memoirs  of  General  W.  T.  Sherman,  pp,  53,  78. 

•Ibid.,  p.  72. 


112  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1849 

then  began  an  emigration  to  California  for  which  nowhere 
could  there  be  found  a  likeness  save  in  a  tale  of  legendary 
Greece.  The  thirsters  after  gold,  the  seekers  of  El  Dorado, 
were  Argonauts  in  search  of  the  golden  fleece.  Yet  the  re- 
semblance fails  when  we  come  to  consider  the  character  of 
the  California  emigrants.  While  they  numbered  many  good 
men,  especially  from  the  Western  States,1  there  were  many 
outlaws  and  criminals  among  them.  From  all  parts  of  the 
world  outcasts  and  vagrants  swelled  the  crowd  that  under- 
took the  hardships  of  the  dangerous  journey  for  the  sake  of 
bettering  their  condition  and  their  fortunes.  In  truth,  the 
journey  was  one  that  only  the  hardy  could  endure.  If  the 
emigrant  chose  to  go  by  sailing  vessel  from  New  York 
around  Cape  Horn,  he  had  to  brave  the  perils  and  discom- 
forts of  the  most  dangerous  of  ocean  voyages.  He  could, 
indeed,  go  by  the  Isthmus  of  Panama,  but,  as  the  railroad 
was  not  then  built,  the  crossing  of  the  isthmus  was  attend- 
ed with  great  hazard.  Arriving  at  Panama,  on  the  Pacific 
side,  the  travellers  had  to  wait  for  days,  and  even  weeks,  in 
an  atmosphere  whose  every  breath  was  laden  with  pestilen- 
tial spores.  On  more  than  one  occasion,  when  the  steam- 
ship arrived  which  was  to  take  them  to  the  Golden  Gate,  it 
was  found  that  the  expectant  passengers  largely  exceeded 
the  capacity  of  the  boat,  and  men  scrambled  and  fought  to 
get  on  board  to  secure  their  paid-for  passage. 

There  was  still  left  the  overland  route.  This  was  a  wag- 
on journey  of  more  than  two  thousand  miles,  through  a  coun- 
try of  great  variety  in  its  physical  features.  Warm,  pleasant 
valleys  were  succeeded  by  bleak  and  almost  impassable  moun- 
tains; thence  the  route  proceeded  down  into  miasmatic 
swamps,  then  across  forbidding  alkali  wastes  and  salt  flats, 
baked  and  cracked  by  the  sun.  The  travellers  were  stifled 
with  heat  and  dust,  yet  were  likewise  sure  to  encounter 
drenching  rains.  It  was  often  necessary  to  cross  flooded 
lowlands  and  sweeping  river  currents ;  as  if  the  misery  were 


H.  T.  Davis,  Solitary  Places  Made  Glad,  p.  47. 


Call.]  CALIFORNIA  113 

not  complete,  they  met  with  occasional  chilling  blasts  and 
suffocating  simoons.  They  were  not  only  subject  to  these 
changes  of  climate  and  altitude,  but  they  were  in  constant 
fear  of  the  savages.1  "Whether  by  starvation,  disease,  or 
violence,  many  of  the  overland  emigrants  perished  on  the 
way.  Nevertheless,  in  spite  of  all  these  obstacles,  there  ar- 
rived in  California,  in  the  year  1849,  39,000  souls  by  sea  and 
42,000  overland.2  These  were  the  "  inflowing  Argonauts," 
known  to  this  day  as  "  forty-niners,"  from  the  year  in  which 
they  made  their  journey.  '  Discouraging  and  conflicting  re- 
ports came  home  from  the  emigrants,  but  the  rush  continued ; 
and  some  years  later,  in  England,  the  telling  pen  of  De  Quin- 
cey  was  enlisted  to  decry  California.  "  She,"  said  the  brill- 
iant Englishman,  "  is  going  ahead  at  a  rate  that  beats  Sind- 
bad  and  Gulliver."  Its  story  reads  "  to  the  exchanges  of 
Europe  like  a  page  from  the  i  Arabian  Nights.' " 3 

What  was  the  government  of  this  community  ?  How  was 
law  administered  ?  There  was  the  military  governor,  who  had 
no  authority  save  such  as  he  might  choose  to  assume ;  and 
there  were  the  alcaldes,  a  survival  of  the  Mexican  officials, 
with  duties  that  were  partly  judicial  and  partly  executive ; 
their  business  was  to  maintain  order,  punish  crime,  and  re- 
dress injuries.4  Some  of  the  old  Mexican  alcaldes  still  held 
their  sway,  and  others  had  been  chosen  by  the  communities 
over  which  they  presided.  Walter  Colton  was  appointed  al- 


1  This  description  of  the  overland  route  is  partly  quoted  and  partly 
paraphrased  from  H.  H.  Bancroft,  vol.  xviii.  p.  148. 
9  Ibid.,  p.  159. 

3  De  Quincey's  Essay  on  California.     The  romantic  side  of  the  Califor- 
nia fever  did  not  escape  the  notice  of  George  Ticknor.     He  writes  to  Sir 
Charles  Lyell,  in  1849,  that  it  is  evidence  that  there  is  "  in  our  Anglo- 
Saxon  blood  more  of  a  spirit  of  adventure  and  romance  than  belongs  to 
the  age." — Life  of  George  Ticknor,  vol.  ii.  p.  241.     Only  three  years  pre- 
viously American  fellow-travellers  of  Lyell  had  told  him  in  their  journey 
from  New  York  to  Boston  that  they  hoped  to  see  in  their  lifetime  a  pop- 
ulation of  fifteen  thousand  souls  in  California  and  Oregon.     Sir  Charles 
Lyell's  Second  Visit,  vol.  ii.  p.  265. 

4  Colton,  p.  19. 

I.— 8 


114  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1849 

calde  of  Monterey  by  the  commodore  of  the  naval  ship  which 
was  stationed  at  that  port.1  But  on  the  whole  the  territory 
was  bordering  on  a  state  of  anarchy.  There  were  no  land 
laws;  mining  titles  were  disputed  and  sometimes  fought  over.2 
A  deserted  wife  at  San  Francisco  complained  that  there  was 
no  power  to  give  her  a  legal  divorce.  The  habit  of  carrying 
weapons  was  universal ;  drunken  brawls  were  common ;  the 
Indians  made  raids  on  the  settled  communities  and  stole 
horses  and  cattle ;  the  vineyards  and  orchards  of  San  Jose 
and  Santa  Clara  were  destroyed  by  immigrants ;  it  was  com- 
plained that  San  Luis  Obispo  had  become  "  a  complete  sink 
of  drunkenness  and  debauchery ;"  ruffians  united  themselves 
in  bands  to  rob,  and  the  convoys  from  the  mines  were  their 
especial  prey  ;  murders  were  common,  and  lynch  law  was  put 
into  execution  not  infrequently ;  yet  murder  was  deemed 
a  lesser  crime  than  theft ;  and  when  law-breakers  were  put 
in  prison,  the  alcalde  was  in  constant  fear  that  a  mob  would 
break  in  and  release  the  prisoners.3  The  cry  that  went  out 
of  Macedonia  for  help  was  no  louder  than  that  which  went 
from  the  majority  of  Californians  to  Congress  to  give  them 
a  territorial  government.  Yet,  if  Congress  would  not  help 
them,  they  determined  to  help  themselves.  The  first  immi- 
gration was  largely  from  Mexico,  Peru,  Chili,  China,  and  the 
Hawaiian  Islands,4  and  the  food-supply  of  the  miners  came 
in  considerable  portion  from  this  group.6  But  as  the  Amer- 
ican population  increased,  and  as  men  of  better  antecedents 
joined  the  fortune-seekers,  that  knack  at  political  organiza- 
tion which  is  so  prominent  a  trait  of  our  national  character, 


1  Colton,  p.  17. 

8  California  Inter  Pocula,  H.  H.  Bancroft,  chap.  ix. 

•  H.  H.  Bancroft,  vol.  xviii.  pp.  229,  268.  Bayard  Taylor's  account  is 
different,  but  there  is  no  question  as  to  which  authority  should  be  fol- 
lowed. Bret  Harte  has  exquisitely  given  us  the  flavor  of  those  rough 
times  in  "Tales  of  the  Argonauts,"  "Luck  of  Roaring  Camp,"  "Outcasts 
of  Poker  Flat,"  etc. 

4  Eldorado,  Taylor,  p.  100;  also  Bancroft. 

'  Alexander's  History  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands,  p.  273. 


OH.  II.]  CALIFORNIA  115 

appeared,  and  it  was  determined  to  establish  a  civil  govern- 
ment.1 Meetings  were  held  at  many  places  in  the  territory, 
and  a  convention  to  frame  a  government  was  called  to  meet 
May  6th,  1849 ;  so  that  in  case  Congress  adjourned  March 
4th  without  making  any  provision  for  them,  they  could  go 
ahead  and  institute  a  government  of  their  own.  They  were 
assisted  in  this  movement  by  the  military  governor  and  the 
confidential  agent  of  the  administration.  Forty-eight  mem- 
bers were  chosen  for  the  convention,  of  whom  twenty-two 
were  from  the  Northern  States,  fifteen  from  the  slave  States, 
seven  were  native  Calif ornians,  and  four  foreign  -  born.8 
Party  or  sectional  opinions  had  not  entered  into  the  choice 
of  the  delegates,  but  it  was  supposed  that  their  action  would 
be  controlled  by  Southern  men.8  The  meeting  of  the  con- 
vention was  postponed  from  time  to  time ;  but  at  last  it  met 
at  Monterey  on  the  3d  of  September,  with  the  object  of 
forming  a  State.  The  convention  was  by  no  means  desti- 
tute of  ability,  although  an  assemblage  of  young  men. 
Scarcely  a  gray  head  could  be  seen.'4  There  were  fourteen 
lawyers,  twelve  farmers,  seven  merchants ;  the  remainder 
were  engineers,  bankers,  physicians,  and  printers.6  The  idea 
of  forming  an  original  constitution  did  not  enter  into  their 
heads.  There  were  men  from  various  states  who  were  fa- 
miliar with  the  provisions  of  their  own  organic  law ;  but 
the  Constitution  was  largely  modelled  after  those  of  New 
York  and  Iowa.  To  the  astonishment  of  Northern  men,  no 
objection  whatever  was  made  to  the  clause  in  the  bill  of 
rights  which  forever  prohibited  slavery  in  the  state.8  The 


1  "  The  Americans  surpass  all  other  nations  in  their  power  of  making 
the  best  out  of  bad  conditions,  getting  the  largest  results  out  of  scanty 
materials  or  rough  methods." — American  Commonwealth,  Bryce,  vol.  i. 
p.  169. 

Bancroft,  vol.  xviii.  p.  282. 

Ibid.,  p.  286. 

There  were  three  members  over  fifty,  and  but  ten  over  forty. 

Bancroft,  vol.  xviii.  p.  288. 

Bancroft,  vol.  xviii.  p.  290.    At  first  sight  this  unanimity  may  seem 


116  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1844 

members  of  the  convention  worked  diligently  day  and  night ; 
on  the  13th  of  October  their  labors  were  at  an  end  and  they 
affixed  their  signatures  to  the  Constitution.1  One  month 
later  it  was  adopted  by  the  vote  of  the  people.  The  legisla- 
ture which  it  constituted  met  in  December,  and,  by  a  com- 
promise arrangement,  elected  John  C.  Fremont  and  William 
M.  Gwin  senators;  Fremont  held  anti-slavery  and  Gwin 
pro-slavery  opinions. 

When  Congress  met  on  the  first  Monday  of  December, 
1849,  the  vastly  preponderating  sentiment  in  the  free  States 
was  that  California  and  New  Mexico  should  remain  free 
territory.  On  the  other  hand,  the  sentiment  was  equally 
strong  in  the  South  against  any  congressional  legislation  that 
should  interfere  with  their  supposed  right  of  taking  their 
slaves  into  the  new  territories.  In  other  words,  a  popula- 
tion of  thirteen  millions  demanded  that  the  common  pos- 
session should  be  dedicated  to  freedom ;  a  population  of 
eight  millions  demanded  the  privilege  of  devoting  it  to 
slavery.2  California,  by  the  unanimous  vote  of  a  conven- 
tion regularly  chosen,  whose  action  was  ratified  by  an  honest 
vote  of  her  people,  had  cast  her  lot  on  the  side  of  the  free 
States. 

Congress  met  December  3d.     The  House  was  made  up 


strange,  as  where  labor  was  scarce  and  high  and  gold  plenty  it  might 
seem  desirable  to  have  slaves.  But  I  think  the  gist  of  the  whole  matter 
is  contained  in  the  following  statement  of  a  voting  citizen :  "  One  of  the 
prominent  questions  in  the  election  was  an  expression  as  to  whether 
slavery  shall  be  allowed  in  California ;  the  candidate,  though  a  Louisian- 
ian,  was  opposed  out  and  out  to  the  introduction  of  slavery  here,  and  so 
we  all  voted  for  him.  For  myself,  I  was  of  the  opinion  of  an  old  moun- 
taineer, who,  leaning  against  the  tent-pole,  harangued  the  crowd,  that  in 
a  country  where  every  white  man  made  a  slave  of  himself  there  was  no 
use  in  keeping  niggers." — Correspondence  of  the  Boston  Times,  copied  into 
the  New  York  Tribune  of  Oct.  22d,  1849. 

1  "  The  most  magnificent  illustration  of  the  wonderful  capacity  of  this 
people  for  self-government." — Von  Hoist,  vol.  iii.  p.  463. 

8  These  figures  are  simply  round  numbers,  as  shown  by  the  census  of 
1850;  three-fifths  of  the  slaves  are  included  in  the  slave-State  population. 


CH.IL]  COBB  ELECTED  SPEAKER  117 

of  112  Democrats,  105  Whigs,  and  13  Free-soilers,1  and  its 
organization  first  demanded  attention.  The  candidate  of 
the  Whigs  for  speaker  was  Winthrop,  of  Boston,  an  able 
and  honorable  gentleman,  of  fine  birth  and  breeding,  who 
had  been  speaker  of  the  previous  Congress.  Eight  of  the 
Free-soilers,  however,  under  the  lead  of  Joshua  R.  Giddings, 
refused  their  support  on  the  ground  that  he  had  not  during 
his  term  as  speaker  recognized  the  anti-slavery  sentiment  in 
the  appointment  of  the  committees,  nor  would  he  pledge 
himself  to  do  so  should  he  be  chosen  at  this  session.  Gid- 
dings represented  a  district  of  northeastern  Ohio  composed 
of  several  of  the  counties  of  the  Western  Reserve ;  with  the 
exception  of  the  Plymouth,  it  was  the  most  liberty-loving 
district  in  the  country.  He  had  served  many  terms  in  the 
House,  and  had  distinguished  himself,  battling  by  the  side 
of  John  Quincy  Adams  for  the  right  of  petition  and  for  the 
anti-slavery  cause.  Although  not  a  man  of  great  ability, 
he  had  great  zeal ;  and  as  he  felt  himself  untrammelled  by 
the  shackles  of  party,  he  served  his  district  to  its  full  satis- 
faction, and  made  an  enviable  record  as  an  advocate  of  free- 
dom. Yet  eleven  years  of  legislative  experience  had  failed 
to  teach  him  that,  while  it  is  true  there  are  now  and  then 
political  principles  that  must  not  be  bated  a  jot,  even  though 
the  heavens  fall,  it  is  equally  true  that  for  the  most  part  in 
public  life  one  should  sacrifice  his  ideal  good  for  the  best  at- 
tainable. It  was  so  in  this  case.  If  Giddings  and  his  asso- 
ciates had  voted  for  Winthrop,  he  would  have  been  chosen 
speaker.  They  did  not  choose  to  do  so,  and  finally  Ho  well 
Cobb,  of  Georgia,  was  elected.  His  devotion  to  slavery  and 
Southern  interests  was  the  distinguishing  feature  of  his  char- 
acter, and  he  made  up  the  committees  in  a  way  extremely 

1  I  follow  the  classification  of  the  Congressional  Globe.  Giddings 
states  the  number  of  Free-soilers  as  eight  (History  of  the  Rebellion,  p. 
300) ;  while  Julian,  who  was  one  of  them,  says  they  were  nine  (Political 
Recollections,  p.  73).  Giddings  and  Julian  classify  them  according  to  the 
vote  for  speaker,  while  the  Globe  ranges  them  with  regard  to  their  vital 
principles. 


118  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1849 

favorable  to  the  South  and  the  slave  interest.1  "He  loves 
slavery,"  said  Horace  Mann  ;  "  it  is  his  politics,  his  political 
economy,  and  his  religion." 2  Horace  Mann  had  gained  a 
wide  and  well-deserved  reputation  as  an  educator ;  but  on 
the  death  of  John  Quincy  Adams  he  was  prevailed  upon  to 
fill  the  vacant  place  of  representative  of  the  Plymouth  dis- 
trict. He  was  wiser  than  his  Ohio  colleague,  for  he  voted 
steadily  for  Winthrop  "  as  the  best  man  we  could  possibly 
elect." s  The  acme  of  logical  adherence  to  a  fixed  idea,  in 
spite  of  surrounding  circumstances,  was  reached  when  Gid- 
dings  and  his  followers  voted  for  Brown,  of  Indiana,  for 
speaker,  a  Democrat  of  the  straitest  sect,  because  he  agreed 
to  make  the  constitution  of  certain  committees  satisfactory 
to  them ;  and  that,  too,  while,  as  Giddings  himself  said, 
"  Neither  the  moral  nor  political  character  of  Mr.  Brown 
recommended  him  to  the  favor  of  just  and  honorable  men."4 
The  balloting  for  speaker  lasted  nearly  three  weeks,  and  the 
excitement  occasioned  by  the  protracted  organization  of  the 
House  boded  no  good  for  the  Northern  cause.  Between  the 
ballots  animated  discussions  sometimes  took  place,  and  the 
Southern  bluster  was  loud  and  menacing.  Disunion  was 
emphatically  threatened  in  case  the  principle  of  the  Wilmot 
proviso  was  insisted  upon,  or  if  the  attempt  were  made  to 
abolish  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  Eobert  Toombs 
and  Alexander  Stephens,  both  Whigs  from  Georgia,  were 
the  most  vehement  in  their  threats  to  the  North  and  their 


1  "  Although  the  Whigs  and  Free-soilers  are  a  majority,  yet  only  one 
from  their  number  is  a  chairman  of  any  one  of  the  thirty-seven  commit- 
tees. Of  the  other  thirty-six  chairmen,  nineteen  are  Locos  from  the  slave 
States,  and  seventeen  Locos  from  the  free  States.  Texas,  Alabama,  and 
South  Carolina  afford  five  chairmen ;  the  three  millions  of  New  York  only 
one."— New  York  Tribune,  Jan.  23d. 

8  Life  of  Horace  Mann,  p.  283. 

•  Ibid.,  p.  285. 

•  History  of  the  Rebellion,  p.  302.    Julian,  of  Indiana,  was  not  con- 
cerned in  this  intrigue.     He  was  ill,  and  was  not  at  Washington  at  thia 
time.    Root,  of  Ohio,  likewise  would  not  vote  for  Brown. 


CH.II.]  THE  PRESIDENT'S  MESSAGE  119 

appeals  to  the  South.  Contemptuous  epithets  were  bandied 
to  and  fro ;  at  one  time  the  lie  was  given,  and  only  the  inter- 
ference of  the  sergeant-at-arms  with  his  mace  of  office  pre- 
vented a  fist-fight  on  the  floor  of  the  House.1 

As  soon  as  the  House  was  organized,  the  President  sent 
his  message  to  Congress.  He  touched  briefly  on  the  impor- 
tant question,  but  his  words  were  carefully  weighed.  The 
latest  advices  from  California  gave  him  reason  to  believe 
that  she  had  framed  a  Constitution,  established  a  state  gov- 
ernment, and  would  shortly  apply  for  admission  into  the 
Union.  This  application  was  recommended  to  the  favorable 
consideration  of  Congress.  It  was  likewise  believed  that  at 
a  time  not  far  distant  the  people  of  New  Mexico  would  pre- 
sent themselves  for  admission  into  the  Union.  He  coun- 
selled Congress  to  await  their  action,  for  that  would  avert 
all  causes  of  uneasiness,  and  good  feeling  would  be  pre- 
served. It  was  his  opinion,  moreover,  that  "we  should 
abstain  from  the  introduction  of  those  exciting  topics  of 
sectional  character  which  have  hitherto  produced  painful 
apprehensions  in  the  public  mind." 

The  great  intellectual  contest  was  to  take  place  in  the 
Senate.  There  Webster,  Clay,  and  Calhoun  appeared  to- 
gether for  the  last  time.  They  were  all  of  them  born  dur- 
ing the  Kevolutionary  "War,2  and  were  of  that  school  of 
statesmen  who  had  the  privilege  of  learning  their  lessons  in 
constitutional  law  from  the  lips  of  many  of  the  fathers  of 
the  government  themselves.  It  was  the  last  scene  they 
were  to  play  upon  the  political  stage ;  but  before  they  made 
their  exit  they  saw  the  entrance  of  the  rising  class  of  states- 
men whose  mission  was  to  proclaim  that  slavery  was  sec- 
tional, that  fre'edom  was  national,  and  who  were  more  im- 
bued with  the  sacred  notions  of  liberty  that  the  founders 
of  the  republic  at  first  maintained  than  were  Webster  and 
Clay,  whose  contact  had  been  actual  with  Jefferson  and 


1  Public  Men  and  Events,  Sargent,  vol.  ii.  p.  851, 
1  Clay  in  1777,  Webster  and  Calhoun  in  1782. 


120  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1849 

Adams,  with  Madison  and  Marshall.  Seward  and  Chase 
now  appeared  in  the  Senate  for  the  first  time,  while  Hale 
entered  upon  his  third  year  of  service. 

It  is  now  in  order  to  describe  Clay  more  fully.  He  was  a 
man  of  large  natural  ability,  but  he  lacked  the  training  of 
a  systematic  education.  He  learned  early  to  appreciate  his 
heaven-born  endowments,  and  to  rely  upon  them  for  suc- 
cess in  his  chosen  career.  Of  sanguine  temperament,  quick 
perception,  irresistible  energy,  and  enthusiastic  disposition, 
he  was  well  fitted  to  be  a  party  advocate,  and  was  the 
greatest  parliamentary  leader  in  our  history.1  He  was,  how- 
ever, inclined  to  "crack  the  whip"  over  those  of  his  sup- 
porters who  exhibited  a  desire  to  hang  back  and  question 
whither  his  impetuous  lead  would  tend.8  He  knew  men  well, 
but  he  had  no  knowledge  of  books.  The  gaming-table  had 
for  him  allurements  that  he  could  not  find  in  the  library. 
According  to  the  manners  of  his  time,  he  drank  to  excess. 
His  warm  heart  made  him  a  multitude  of  friends ;  his  im- 
pulsive action  and  positive  bearing  raised  up  enemies ;  yet 
at  his  death  he  left  not  an  enemy  behind  him.*  He  was 
withal  a  man  of  inflexible  integrity.  Straitened  in  pecuniary 
circumstances  during  a  large  part  of  his  Congressional  ca- 
reer, he  nevertheless  held  himself  aloof  from  all  corruption. 
Other  Americans  have  been  intellectually  greater,  others 
have  been  more  painstaking,  others  still  have  been  greater 
benefactors  to  their  country ;  yet  no  man  has  been  loved  as 
the  people  of  the  United  States  loved  Henry  Clay. 

In  his  declining  years  his  thoughts  took  on  a  serious  cast, 
and  he  embraced  the  Christian  religion.  It  is  noteworthy 
that  he  began  his  speech  on  the  compromise  resolutions 
with  words  not  only  solemn,  but  tinctured  with  religious 
fervor.  He  had  not  been  consistent  on  the  slavery  ques- 
tion ;  yet  when  we  consider  that  he  was  a  slave-holder  and 
that  he  represented  a  slave  State,  his  impulsive  outbursts 


1  See  Elaine's  Eulogy  of  Garfield. 

9  George  Bancroft,  Century  Magazine,  vol.  viii.  p.  479.  *  Ibid. 


OH.  IL]  HENRY  CLAY  121 

for  the  cause  of  freedom  are  more  to  be  admired  than  his 
occasional  truckling  to  the  slave  power  is  to  be  condemned. 
At  this  time,  he  was  keenly  alive  to  his  own  importance. 
His  forty  years  of  public  life,  in  which  his  name  had  been 
identified  with  measures  of  the  utmost  significance,  im- 
pelled him  to  think  that  no  legislative  act  of  far-reaching 
moment  would  be  complete  unless  he  had  a  hand  in  its 
framework.  Nearly  eight  years  of  retirement  had  only 
made  him  more  anxious  to  act  a  leading  part  when  he 
came  again  upon  the  scene  of  action.  Before  going  to 
Washington,  he  had  been  flattered  by  hearing  indirectly 
that  the  administration  was  counting  much  on  his  exer- 
tions at  the  approaching  session.1  On  his  arrival  at  the 
capital  he  was  unquestionably  disappointed  that  President 
Taylor  did  not  receive  him  with  open  arms  and  ask  and 
take  his  advice  regarding  the  policy  of  the  administration. 
"My  relations  to  the  President,"  writes  Clay,  "are  civil  and 
amicable,  but  they  do  not  extend  to  any  confidential  con- 
sultations in  regard  to  public  measures." 2  It  is  possible  that 
had  General  Taylor  put  himself  under  the  guidance  of  Clay, 
Clay  might  himself  have  adopted  the  President's  plan  with 
some  elaboration  and  extension,1  but  it  was  contrary  to  his 
nature  and  to  the  whole  course  of  his  life  to  give  unre- 
served adherence  to  the  scheme  of  another.  He  could  lead, 
but  he  could  not  follow.  Especially  was  it  impossible  for 
him  to  follow  the  President,  whose  political  ability  he  de- 
spised ;  nor  could  he  rid  his  inmost  heart  of  the  notion  that 
Taylor  occupied  the  place  which  rightfully  belonged  to  him- 
self.4 A  feeling  of  pique  influenced  him  as  he  went  to  work 
to  concoct  his  scheme;  but  as  he  became  more  deeply  en- 
gaged in  the  labor,  the  overmastering  sentiment  of  his  mind 


1  Clay's  Private  Correspondence,  p.  590. 

a  Letter  of  Jan.  24th,  1850,  Private  Correspondence,  p.  600. 

»  See  his  speech  in  the  Senate  of  May  13th,  1850. 

*  See  letter  on  p.  615,  Private  Correspondence, 


122  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1850 

was  certainly  that  of  sincere  patriotism.  He  believed  that 
the  Union  was  in  danger.  Such  was  the  constitution  of  his 
mind  that,  while  he  was  blind  to  the  merits  of  the  plan  of  an- 
other, the  benefits  of  his  own  dazzled  him  to  the  sight  of  all 
objections.  He  honestly  felt  that  he  was  the  man  beyond  all 
others  to  devise  a  scheme  which  should  save  the  Union.  It 
is  true  that  his  talents  as  a  constructive  statesman  were  of 
high  rank.  His  hope  was  that  this  compromise  would  give 
peace  to  the  country  for  thirty  years,  even  as  the  Missouri 
Compromise  had  done.1  The  plan  was  perfected  by  the  last 
of  January,  and  on  the  29th  Clay  introduced  it  into  the 
Senate  in  the  form  of  a  series  of  resolutions  which  were  in- 
tended to  be  a  basis  of  compromise,  and  whose  object  was 
to  secure  "  the  peace,  concord,  and  harmony  of  the  Union." 
Their  provisions  were  as  follows : 

1.  The  admission  of  California  with  her  free  Constitution. 

2.  As  slavery  does  not  exist  by  law  and  is  not  likely  to 
be  introduced  into  any  of  the  territory  acquired  from  Mex- 
ico, territorial  governments  should  be  established  by  Con- 
gress without  any  restriction  as  to  slavery. 

3.  The  boundary  between  Texas  and  New  Mexico,  which 
was  in  dispute,  was  determined. 

4.  Directs  the  payment  of  the  lonafide  public  debt  of  Texas 
contracted  prior  to  the  annexation,  for  which  the  duties  on 
foreign  imports  were  pledged,  upon  the  condition  that  Texas 
relinquish  her  claim  to  any  part  of  New  Mexico. 

5.  Declares  that  it  is  inexpedient  to  abolish  slavery  in 
the  District  of  Columbia  without  the  consent  of  Maryland, 
of  the  people  of  the  district,  and  without  just  compensation 
to  the  owners  of  slaves. 

6.  Declares  for  the  prohibition  of  the  slave-trade  in  the 
District  of  Columbia. 

7.  More  effectual  provision  should  be  made  for  the  rendi- 
tion of  fugitive  slaves. 


1  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Confederate  Government,  Jefferson  Davis,  vol.  i 
p.  17.     See  also  Clay's  speech  of  Feb.  6th,  1850. 


CH.IL]  CLAY'S  SPEECH  123 

8.  Declares  that  Congress  has  no  power  to  interfere  with 
the  slave-trade  between  the  States. 

A  few  days  after  the  introduction  of  the  resolutions,  Clay 
obtained  the  floor  of  the  Senate  and  made  a  set  speech  in 
their  favor.  He  was  a  persuasive  speaker,  his  magnetism 
was  great;  the  impassioned  utterance  and  the  action  suit- 
ed to  the  word  aroused  the  enthusiasm  of  the  moment, 
and  carried  everything  resistlessly  before  him,  whether  he 
addressed  the  tumultuous  mass -meeting  or  his  cultivated 
audience  of  the  Senate.  Yet  he  can  hardly  be  ranked  as 
among  the  half-dozen  great  orators  of  the  world.  It  is 
true  that  his  speeches  in  print  convey  no  idea  of  the  effect 
of  their  delivery,  and,  in  the  reading,  one  loses  the  whole 
force  of  his  fine  physical  presence,  and  fails  to  appreciate 
the  strength  derived  from  his  supremely  nervous  tempera- 
ment. He  began  in  an  egotistical  vein,  referring  in  the 
most  natural  way  to  his  long  absence  from  the  Senate,  ex- 
plained that  his  return  was  simply  "  in  obedience  to  a  stern 
sense  of  duty,"1  and  disclaimed  any  higher  object  of  per- 
sonal ambition  than  the  position  he  now  occupied.  None 
could  doubt  his  sincerity.  He  had  given  up  all  hope  of  at- 
taining the  presidency,  which  he  had  so  long  and  so  ardent- 
ly desired.  Age 2  and  ill-health,  for  his  body  was  racked  by 
a  cruel  cough,  served  to  remind  him  that  the  sands  of  his 
earthly  career  were  almost  run.  On  this  day  that  he  was 
to  speak  for  the  cause  of  the  Union,  he  was  so  weak  that 
he  could  not  mount  the  steps  of  the  Capitol  without  leaning 
on  the  arm  of  his  companion  and  stopping  to  rest.3  Al- 
though the  floor  of  the  Senate  wras  crowded  and  the  gal- 
leries were  filled  with  a  brilliant  audience  of  grace,  beauty, 
and  intelligence,4  his  expression  of  opinion  was  as  honest 


1  Speech  of  Henry  Clay,  Feb.  5th,  1850. 

*  He  was  now  in  his  seventy-third  year. 

3  Last  Seven  Years  of  Henry  Clay,  Colton,  p.  131. 

*  "  Mr.  Clay's  unrivalled  popularity  has  again  secured  him  an  audience 
such  as  no  other  statesman,  no  matter  however  able  and  respected,  has 


124  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [I860 

and  frank  as  if  he  were  talking  to  a  confidential  friend.     He 
was  thoroughly  impressed  with  the  dangers  that  beset  the 
country.     He  speaks  of  never  before  having  been  "  so  ap- 
palled and  so  anxious ;"  he  calls  his  theme  "  the  awful  sub- 
ject."   As  an  evidence  of  the  intense  party  feeling,  he  allud- 
ed to  the  fact  that  the  House  had  spent  one  whole  week  in 
the  vain  attempt  to  elect  a  doorkeeper  because  the  point 
at  issue  was  "  whether  the  doorkeeper  entertained  opinions 
upon  certain  national  measures  coincident  with  this  or  that 
side  of  the  House."     He  thus  described  the  manifestations 
of  the  excitement  prevalent  in  the  country :  "  At  this  mo- 
ment we  have  in  the  legislative  bodies  of  this  capitol  and 
in  the  States  twenty  odd  furnaces  in  full  blast,  emitting 
heat  and  passion   and  intemperance,  and  diffusing  them 
throughout  the  whole  extent  of  this  broad  land."     His  en- 
deavor had  been  to  "form  such  a  scheme  of  accommoda- 
tion" as  would  obviate  "the  sacrifice  of  any  great  princi- 
ple "  by  either  section  of  the  country,  and  he  believed  that 
the  series  of  resolutions  which  he  presented  accomplished 
the  object.    Concession  by  each  side  was  necessary,  "not 
of  principle,  but  of  feeling,  of  opinion  in  relation  to  mat- 
ters in  controversy  between  them."     The  admission  of  Cal- 
ifornia as  a  State  would,  under  the  circumstances,  be  simply 
the  recognition  of  a  time-honored  precedent  of  the  govern- 
ment.    The  North  insisted  on  the  application  of  the  Wil- 
mot  proviso  to  the  rest  of  the  territory  acquired  from  Mex- 
ico ;  yet  slavery  did  not  exist  there  by  law,  and  the  orator 
in  a  few  pregnant  questions  stated  the  case  in  the  most 
powerful  manner :  "  What  do  you  want  who  reside  in  the 
free  States  ?    You  want  that  there  shall  be  no  slavery  in- 
troduced into  the  territories  acquired  from  Mexico.     Well, 
have  you  not  got  it  in  California  already,  if  admitted  as  a 
State  ?    Have  you  not  got  it  in  New  Mexico,  in  all  human 
probability,  also  ?    What  more  do  you  want  ?    You  have 


ever  before  obtained  here.    To  get  within  hearing  of  his  voice  I  found 
to  be  impossible." — Washington  correspondence  of  New  York  Tribune. 


CH.IL]  CLAY'S  SPEECH  125 

got  what  is  worth  a  thousand  Wilmot  provisos.  You  have 
got  nature  itself  on  your  side.  You  have  the  fact  itself  on 
your  side."  It  was,  however,  necessary  to  institute  a  terri- 
torial government  for  New  Mexico.  It  was  not  right  to 
allow  matters  to  run  along  without  interference  from  Con- 
gress, to  establish  a  regular  system.  The  orator  referred  to 
the  fact  that  in  the  previous  September  the  people  of  New 
Mexico  had  held  a  convention,  had  chosen  a  delegate  to  Con- 
gress, and  had  instructed  him  to  represent  to  that  body  that 
their  actual  government  was  "  temporary,  doubtful,  uncer- 
tain, and  inefficient  in  character  and  operation,"  that  they 
were  "  surrounded  and  despoiled  by  barbarous  foes,  and  ruin 
appears  inevitably  before  us,  unless  speedy  and  effectual  pro- 
tection be  extended  to  us  by  the  United  States." 

Of  only  one  other  item  of  the  compromise  resolutions  is 
it  necessary  to  speak  in  detail.  The  settlement  of  the  Texas 
boundary  may  be  regarded  as  an  eminently  proper  one,  al- 
though the  payment  of  the  Texan  debt  was  open  to  objec- 
tion as  being  a  measure  not  free  from  corruption.  As  there 
"  was  money  in  it,"  that  feature  might  be  looked  upon  as  in- 
tending to  win  support  for  the  entire  project.  In  the  pro- 
visions regarding  the  District  of  Columbia,  a  concession  was 
made  to  the  demands  of  each  side. 

There  remained,  then,  the  declaration  in  favor  of  a  pro- 
vision for  the  more  effectual  rendition  of  fugitive  slaves. 
Until  he  reached  this  point,  Clay's  leaning  had  evidently 
been  more  to  the  Northern  than  to  the  Southern  side  of  the 
controversy,  although  he  tried  to  hold  the  balance  level  be- 
tween them,  and  endeavored  to  blend  appeal  and  argument 
equally  to  each  section.  But  on  this  point  he  took  extreme 
Southern  ground.  The  Fugitive  Slave  law,  passed  in  the  first 
years  of  the  government,1  required  the  aid  and  countenance 
of  the  State  magistrates  as  well  as  judges  of  the  United 
States  for  its  execution ;  but,  as  the  sentiment  on  the  slavery 
question  diverged  more  widely  between  the  two  sections, 

1  See  p.  24. 


126  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1850 

there  arose  a  strong  feeling  in  the  Northern  States  against 
lending  their  assistance  to  restore  fugitive  slaves.  The  leg- 
islature of  Massachusetts  enacted  a  law,  making  it  penal  for 
her  officers  to  perform  any  duties  under  the  act  of  Congress 
of  1793  for  their  surrender.  Pennsylvania  passed  an  act  for- 
bidding her  judicial  authorities  to  take  cognizance  of  any 
fugitive-slave  case.1  The  border  States  especially  complained 
of  the  difficulties  encountered  in  reclaiming  their  runaway 
negroes.  And  as  it  had  been  decided  by  the  United  States 
Supreme  Court  that  the  Constitution  had  conferred  on  Con- 
gress an  exclusive  power  to  legislate  concerning  their  ex- 
tradition, it  was  demanded  by  those  Southerners  who  were 
willing  to  compromise  the  matters  in  dispute  that  a  more 
effectual  law  for  the  recovery  of  fugitive  slaves  should  be  a 
part  of  the  arrangement.  So  much  explanation  is  necessary 
to  understand  Clay's  very  positive  expressions.  "  Upon  this 
subject,"  he  said,  "  I  do  think  that  we  have  just  and  serious 
cause  of  complaint  against  the  free  States.  ...  It  is  our 
duty  to  make  the  law  more  effective ;  and  I  shall  go  with 
the  senator  from  the  South  who  goes  furthest  in  making 
penal  laws  and  imposing  the  heaviest  sanctions  for  the  re- 
covery of  fugitive  slaves  and  the  restoration  of  them  to  their 
owners.'5 

After  touching  upon  each  one  of  his  resolutions  in  order, 
Clay  offered  some  general  considerations :  "  There  have 
been,  unhappily,  mutual  causes  of  agitation  furnished  by 
one  class  of  the  States  as  well  as  by  the  other,  though,  I  ad- 
mit, not  in  the  same  degree  by  the  slave  States  as  by  the  free 
States."  Yet  he  had  "  an  earnest  and  anxious  desire  to  pre- 
sent the  olive  branch  to  both  parts  of  this  distracted  and  at 
the  present  moment  unhappy  country."  He  made  an  ap- 
peal to  both  sides  to  do  something  to  quiet  the  clamors  of 
the  nation ;  depicting,  in  lively  colors,  the  vast  extent  of  the 


1  Thirty  Years'  View,  Benton,  vol.  ii.  p.  774 ;  Massachusetts,  Acts  and 
Resolves,  1843-45,  chap.  xlix. ;  Laws  of  Pennsylvania,  Session  of  1847, 
p.  207,  Act  No.  159. 


CH.IL]  CALHOUN'S  SPEECH  127 

country,  its  present  prosperity  and  wealth,  the  success  of 
the  government,  as  having  proceeded  from  the  Union.  If 
these  great  blessings  were  worth  conserving,  mutual  conces- 
sions should  certainly  be  made  to  save  the  Union  from  dis- 
solution. "  War  and  dissolution  of  the  Union  are  identical," 
he  exclaimed.  The  orator  closed  with  a  prophecy  that 
events  have  completely  falsified.  Should  the  Union  be  dis- 
solved and  war  follow,  he  declared,  it  would  be  a  war  more 
ferocious  and  bloody,  more  implacable  and  exterminating, 
than  were  the  wars  of  Greece,  the  wars  of  the  Commoners 
of  England,  or  the  revolutions  of  France.  And  after  a  war 
— "  not  of  two  or  three  years'  duration,  but  a  war  of  inter- 
minable duration  .  .  .  some  Philip  or  Alexander,  some  Cae- 
sar or  Napoleon,  would  arise  and  cut  the  Gordian  knot  and 
solve  the  problem  of  the  capacity  of  man  for  self-govern- 
ment, and  crush  the  liberties  of  both  the  severed  portions 
of  this  common  empire." l 

The  floor  of  the  Senate  was  assigned  to  Calhoun  for 
the  4th  of  March,  to  speak  on  the  compromise  resolutions. 
Long  battle  with  disease  had  wasted  his  frame,  but,  swathed 
in  flannels,  he  crawled  to  the  Senate  chamber  to  utter  his 
last  words  of  warning  to  the  North,  and  to  make  his  last 
appeal  for  what  he  considered  justice  to  his  own  beloved 
South.  He  was  too  weak  to  deliver  his  carefully  written 
speech.  At  his  request,  it  was  read  by  Senator  Mason.  Cal- 
houn sat,  with  head  erect  and  eyes  partly  closed,  immovable 
in  front  of  the  reader ;  and  he  did  not  betray  a  sense  of  the 
deep  interest  with  which  his  friends  and  followers  listened 
to  the  well -matured  words  of  their  leader  and  political 
guide.2  This  was  Calhoun's  last  formal  speech ;  before  the 
end  of  the  month  he  had  passed  away  from  the  scene  of 
earthly  contention.  The  speech  is  mainly  interesting  as 
stating  with  precision  the  numerical  preponderance  of  the 


1  The  quotations  are  from  Clay's  speech  made  Feb.  5th  and  6th,  1850, 
and  taken  from  Last  Seven  Years  of  Henry  Clay,  Calvin  Colton. 
*  C.  A.  Dana,  Washington  correspondent  of  New  York  Tribune. 


128  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [18do 

North,  the  reasons  of  Southern  discontent,  and  the  fore- 
bodings of  his  prophetic  soul  in  reference  to  the  future.  He 
admitted  that  universal  discontent  pervaded  the  South.  Its 
"great  and  primary  cause  is  that  the  equilibrium  between 
the  two  sections  has  been  destroyed."  It  was  the  old  story 
that  the  North  had  grown  faster  in  population  than  the 
South.  Every  one  knows  that  it  was  slavery  which  kept 
back  the  South  in  the  race ;  but  this  Calhoun  could  not  see, 
and  he  sought  the  cause  in  remote  and  unsubstantial  reasons. 
When  Calhoun  said  the  South,  he  meant  the  slave  power, 
and  the  South  had  not  held  pace  with  the  North  because, 
first,  in  his  opinion,  the  Ordinance  of  1787  and  the  Missouri 
Compromise  had  excluded  her  from  territory  that  should 
have  been  left  "  open  to  the  emigration  of  masters  with  their 
slaves ;"  second,  the  tariff  and  internal-improvements  system 
had  worked  decidedly  against  her  interests  ;  and,  third,  the 
gradual  yet  steady  assumption  of  greater  powers  by  the 
federal  government  at  the  expense  of  the  rights  of  the  States 
had  proved  an  inestimable  injury  to  the  South.  "  The  cords 
that  bind  the  States  together,"  said  the  senator,  "  are  not 
only  many,  but  various  in  character.  Some  are  spiritual  or 
ecclesiastical ;  some  political,  others  social."  The  strongest 
are  those  of  a  religious  nature,  but  they  have  begun  to 
snap.  The  great  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  divided ; 
there  is  a  Methodist  Church  North  and  a  Methodist  Church 
South,  and  they  are  hostile.  The  Protestant  organization 
next  in  size,  the  Baptist  Church,  has  likewise  fallen  asunder. 
The  cord  which  binds  the  Presbyterian  Church  "  is  not  en- 
tirely snapped,  but  some  of  its  strands  have  given  way. 
That  of  the  Episcopal  Church  is  the  only  one  of  the  four 
great  Protestant  denominations  which  remains  unbroken 
and  entire.  ...  If  the  agitation  goes  on,  the  same  force, 
acting  with  increased  intensity,  will  finally  snap  every  cord  " 
— political  and  social  as  well  as  ecclesiastical — "  when  noth- 
ing will  be  left  to  hold  the  States  together  except  force."  It 
is  undeniable  that  the  Union  is  in  danger.  How  can  it  be 
saved  ?  Neither  the  plan  of  the  distinguished  senator  of 


CH.IL]  CALHOUN'S  SPEECH  129 

Kentucky  nor  that  of  the  administration  will  save  the  Union, 
It  rests  with  the  North,  the  stronger  party,  whether  or  not 
she  will  take  the  course  which  will  effect  this  devoutly  to 
be -wished -for  consummation.  The  North  must  give  us 
equal  rights  in  the  acquired  territory;  she  .must  return 
our  fugitive  slaves;  she  must  cease  the  agitation  of  the 
slave  question ;  and  she  must  consent  to  an  amendment 
to  the  Constitution  "which  will  restore  to  the  South,  in 
substance,  the  power  she  possessed  of  protecting  herself 
before  the  equilibrium  between  the  two  sections  was  de- 
stroyed by  the  action  of  this  government."  The  admis- 
sion of  California  will  be  the  test  question.  If  you  admit 
her,  it  will  be  notice  to  us  that  you  propose  to  use  your 
present  strength  and  to  add  to  it  "with  the  intention  of 
destroying  irretrievably  the  equilibrium  between  the  two 
sections." ' 

The  latter  part  of  Calhoun's  speech  is  important  solely 
because  it  defines  the  position  of  the  extreme  Southern  par- 
ty. The  mildness  of  his  language,  and  the  almost  pathetic 
appeal  to  Northern  senators,  did  not  veil  the  arrogance  of 
his  demands.  He  did  not  now  explain  the  nature  of  the 
constitutional  amendment  which  in  his  judgment  was  re- 
quired, but  in  a  posthumous  essay,3  which  was  designed  as 
his  political  testament,  he  entered  upon  the  matter  fully. 
The  amendment  was  to  provide  for  the  election  of  two 
Presidents,  one  from  the  free  States  and  one  from  the  slave 
States ;  either  was  to  have  a  veto  on  all  congressional  legis- 
lation. He  held  until  the  end  to  the  fanciful  Koman  anal- 
ogy.8 He  saw  in  his  mind's  eye  the  Southern  tribune  check- 
ing the  power  of  the  Northern  consul  and  of  Congress  ;  and 
while  he  remembered  that  the  tribunes  of  Rome  became  as 


1  For  the  whole  speech  of  Calhoun  see  Congressional  Globe,  vol.  xxi. 
part  i.  p.  451.  A  very  good  abridgment  may  be  found  in  American  Ora- 
tions, vol.  ii.  p.  46. 

a  Discourse  on  the  Constitution  and  Government  of  the  United  States. 

•  See  p.  44. 
I.— 9 


130  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1850 

despots  with  absolute  power,  this  did  not  lessen  his  wish  for 
a  like  authority  as  a  safeguard  of  Southern  interests.  In- 
tellectual vagary  can  go  to  no  extremer  length  in  politics 
than  to  propound  a  scheme  which  is  alike  impossible  of 
adoption,  and  would  be  utterly  impracticable  in  operation. 
The  constitutional  amendment  suggested  by  Calhoun  was 
generally  regarded  at  the  South  as  a  Utopian  scheme ;  yet 
he  had  a  following  of  something  like  fifty  members x  of  Con- 
gress, who,  even  if  they  did  not  subscribe  to  his  vague  ideas 
in  the  science  of  government,  were  willing  to  follow  him  to 
the  extreme  length  of  secession  from  the  Union,  if  the  dis- 
pute could  not  be  settled  to  their  liking.  These  members 
represented  fairly  the  feeling  of  their  slave-holding  constit- 
uents. 

Before  proceeding  to  the  further  consideration  of  the 
debate  on  the  compromise  resolutions,  we  should  satisfy 
ourselves  whether  the  Union  was  indeed  in  danger.  The 
proceedings  of  Congress  had  certainly  intensified  the  ex- 
citement. The  contest  for  speaker,  the  clashes  between  the 
representatives  of  the  opposing  views,  the  threats  on  one 
side  and  defiance  on  the  other,  had  added  gravity  to  a 
situation  already  grave.  "  Two  months  ago,"  said  Clay, 
"  all  was  calm  in  comparison  to  the  present  moment.  All 
now  is  uproar,  confusion,  and  menace  to  the  existence  of  the 
Union  and  to  the  happiness  and  safety  of  the  people."' 
Yet  Clay  had  great  difficulty  in  making  up  his  mind  as  to 
how  much  of  the  danger  was  real,  and  how  much  only  ap- 
parent. He  writes,  "  My  hopes  and  fears  alternate." '  Cal- 
houn's  speech  was  as  sincere  as  a  death-bed  utterance,  and 
leaves  no  doubt  that  he  believed  the  country  on  the  eve  of 
disunion.  Webster  was  as  much  perplexed  as  Clay.  In 


1  Nine  senators  and  forty  representatives,  according  to  the  New  York 
Tribune  of  March  5th. 

»  Speech  of  Henry  Clay,  Feb.  5th. 

3  Letter  to  T.  B.  Stevenson,  Jan.  26th,  Last  Seven  Years  of  Henry  Clay, 
p.  497. 


CH.II.]  WAS  THE  UNION  IN   DANGER?  131 

the  middle  of  February  he  did  not  fear  dissolution  of  the 
Union  nor  the  breaking-up  of  the  government.1  He  writes : 
"  I  think  that  the  clamor  about  disunion  rather  abates.  I 
trust  that  if  on  our  side  we  keep  cool,  things  will  come  to 
no  dangerous  pass.  California  will  probably  be  admitted 
just  as  she  presents  herself."2  Three  weeks  later  he  had 
materially  modified  his  opinion.  Still,  there  was  not  so 
much  change  in  the  actual  situation  as  in  one's  apprehen- 
sion of  it.  For  it  was  a  time  of  seething  commotion ;  the 
political  atmosphere  was  highly  charged ;  one's  settled 
opinions  of  to-day  were  liable  to  be  disturbed  by  violent  col- 
lision of  opposing  notions  to-morrow ;  and  the  impetuous 
speech  of  some  Southern  Hotspur  might  shake  \he  reso- 
lution of  timorous  Northern  men.3  Yet  the  fears  were  not 
all  confined  to  the  national  capital.  Scott,  the  general 
of  the  army,  who  was  stationed  at  New  York,  thought 
that  "our  country  was^n  the  eve  of  a  terrible  civil  war."4 
Senator  Benton,  however,  ridiculed  the  idea  of  danger.6 
Seward  thought  the  threats  of  disunion  "too  trivial  for 
serious  notice."6  Chase  was  not  in  the  least  alarmed  at 


1  Letter  to  P.  Harvey,  Feb.  14th,  Curtis,  vol.  ii.  p.  398. 
9  Letter  to  Edward  Everett,  Feb.  16th,  Private  Correspondence,  vol.  ii. 
p.  355. 

3  "  It  is  undeniable  that  there  exists  no  small  degree  of  violent  feeling 
among  a  small  portion  of  the  Southern  members.     And  so  peculiar  is  the 
state  of  society  in  the  South,  so  morbid  is  the  sensitiveness  caused  by  the 
influence  of  slavery,  that  it  is  only  at  the  utmost  peril  that  a  Southern 
man  can  allow  any  other  man  to  outstrip  him  in  apparent  zeal  and  vio- 
lence for  the  defence  of  that  institution.     When  one  roars,  therefore  all 
must  roar ;  when  one  whines,  all  must  whine.     Hence  there  is  an  appar- 
ent combustibleness  on  all  occasions,  which  superficial  observers  are  apt 
to  take  for  a  deep-seated  and  durable  determination  to  break  from  the 
Union." — Washington  correspondence,  New  York  Independent,  Feb.  23d, 
1850. 

4  Remark  made  to  General  Sherman,  Memoirs  of  General  Sherman, 
vol.  i.  p.  82. 

8  Thirty  Years'  View,  vol.  ii.  p.  749. 

•  Life  of  Seward,  Baker,  p.  145 ;  Seward's  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  81. 


132  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1850 

"  the  stale  cry  of  disunion." '  Giddings  thought  the  "  cry 
of  dissolution  was  gasconade.  ...  It  has  been  the  dernier 
ressort  of  Southern  men  for  fifty  years  whenever  they  desired 
to  frighten  dough-faces  into  a  compliance  with  their  meas- 
ures.3 In  general,  the  Northern  anti-slavery  men  treated  the 
Southern  threats  as  bravado  and  as  hardly  worth  serious 
notice.3  Yet  there  was  one  notable  exception  to  this  uni- 
versal opinion.  Horace  Mann  believed  that  if  the  North 
insisted  upon  passing  the  Wilmot  proviso  for  the  territories, 
some  of  the  Southern  States  would  rebel.*  Still,  there  was 
an  earnest  feeling  at  the  North,  and  especially  in  New  Eng- 
land, that  if  there  were  a  risk  in  insisting  that  slavery  should 
go  no  further,  it  was  a  risk  well  worth  taking.5 


1  Senate  speech,  March  27th. 
9  Giddings's  Speeches,  p.  409. 

*  "  Our  Northern  friends  are  blind,  absolutely  blind,  to  the  real  dangers 
by  which  we  are  surrounded." — Letter  of  C.  S.  Morehead,  Whig  represen- 
tative from  Kentucky,  to  John  J.  Crittenden,  March  30th,  Life  of  Critten- 
den,  vol.  i.  p.  363.    The  opinion  at  that  time  of  the  extreme  abolitionist 
was  well  stated  by  Theodore  Parker  in  a  sermon  delivered  in  1852.     He 
combated  strenuously  the  idea  that  there  was  any  danger  of  dissolution 
of  the  Union  in  1850.     "  We  have,"  he  said,  "  the  most  delicate  test  of 
public  opinion— the  state  of  the  public  funds,  the  barometer  which  indi- 
cates any  change  in  the  political  weather;"  but  during  all  this  discussion 
"  the  funds  of  the  United  States  did  not  go  down  one  mill."   "  The  South- 
ern men  know  well  that  if  the  Union  were  dissolved  their  riches  would 
take  to  itself  legs  and  run  away — or  firebrands,  and  make  a  St.  Domingo 
out  of  South  Carolina !     They  cast  off  the  North  !     They  set  up  for  them- 
selves !     Tush !  tush !     Fear  boys  with  bugs  1" 

*  "  I  really  think  if  we  insist  upon  passing  the  Wilmot  proviso  for  the 
territories  that  the  South— a  part  of  them— will  rebel ;  but  I  would  pass 
it,  rebellion  or  not.     I  consider  no  evil  so  great  as  that  of  the  extension 
of  slavery."— Letter  of  Horace  Mann,  Feb.  6th,  Life,  p.  288. 

*  "  Rather  than  consent  voluntarily  to  the  extension  of  the  slave  insti- 
tution to  one  foot  of  free  territory— rather  than  surrender  their  principles 
— they  [the  Northern  people]  would  submit  to  have  the  Union  severed. 
This,  we  believe,  is  the  true  feeling  of  the  North." — Springfield  Repub- 
lican, Feb.,  1850,  cited  by  the   Liberator.     See  also  Life   of  Samuel 
Bowles,  vol.  i.  p.  77.    "  Let  the  Union  be  a  thousand  times  shivered  rather 


OH.  II.]  WAS  THE  UNION  IN  DANGER?  133 

Carefully  weighing  the  contemporary  evidence,  and  look- 
ing on  it  in  the  light  of  subsequent  history,  I  think  that 
little  danger  of  an  overt  act  of  secession  existed  while  Gen- 
eral Taylor  was  in  the  presidential  chair.  The  power  of  a 
determined  executive  to  resist  the  initial  steps  towards  cast- 
ing off  allegiance  to  the  general  government  was  great. 
While  diverse  constitutional  interpretations  and  different 
views  as  to  the  force  of  various  precedents  might  puzzle  the 
President,  he  was  certain  to  discern  betimes  any  move  tow- 
ards rebellion ;  and  that  he  was  resolved  to  put  down  with 
all  the  force  at  his  command.1 

An  incident  occurring  at  this  time  shows  to  what  stern 
determination  General  Taylor  had  come.  The  extreme 
pro-slavery  Whigs  from  the  Southern  States  took  the  posi- 
tion that  they  were  willing  to  admit  California,  provided 
that  in  the  rest  of  the  territory  in  question  the  government 
would  protect  and  recognize  property  in  slaves,  even  as 
other  property  was  protected  and  recognized.  But  until 
this  condition  was  formally  acknowledged  they  were  utterly 
opposed  to  the  admission  of  California  with  her  free  con- 
stitution, and,  with  the  assistance  of  the  Southern  Demo- 
crats, they  prevented  by  filibustering  the  consideration  of 
a  bill  in  the  House  which  had  that  for  its  object.  While 
this  obstruction  was  in  progress,  Alexander  H.  Stephens 
and  Robert  Toombs,  both  Southern  Whig  representatives, 
called  to  see  the  President  to  discuss  his  policy  and  to  de- 
mand that  he,  as  their  party's  chief,  should  use  his  influence 
and  power  to  favor  the  end  which  they  had  in  view.  The 
President  plainly  informed  them  that  he  would  sign  any 
constitutional  law  which  Congress  might  pass.  The  direct 
intimation  was  that  he  would  sign  a  bill  which  provided 

than  we  should  aid  you  [the  South]  to  plant  slavery  on  free  soil." — New 
York  Tribune,  Feb.  20th. 

1  "  The  malcontents  of  the  South  mean  to  be  factious ;  and  they  expect 
to  compel  compromise.  I  think  the  President  as  willing  to  try  conclu- 
sions with  them  as  General  Jackson  was  with  the  nullifiers." — Seward  to 
Weed,  Nov.  30th,  1849,  Life  of  Seward,  vol.  ii.  p.  112. 


134  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [18BO 

unconditionally  for  the  admission  of  California ;  and  they 
were  indirectly  given  to  understand  that  he  would  approve 
the  application  of  the  Wilmot  proviso  to  the  territories.1 
As  a  reply  to  this  outline  of  future  action,  the  Southern  con- 
gressmen threatened  dissolution  of  the  Union,  whereupon  the 
President  became  angry  and  said  that,  if  it  were  necessary, 
he  would  take  the  field  himself  to  enforce  the  laws  of  his 
country;  and  if  these  gentlemen  were  taken  in  rebellion 
against  the  Union,  he  would  hang  them  with  as  little  mercy 
as  he  had  hanged  deserters  and  spies  in  Mexico." 

In  the  midst  of  the  mutual  recrimination  accompanying 
this  inevitable  sectional  controversy,  there  can  be  no  better 
evidence  as  to  whence  came  the  aggression  than  the  com- 
plete change  that  had  taken  place  in  the  sentiments  of  Gen- 
eral Taylor  since  he  had  occupied  the  executive  office.  Be- 
fore he  was  nominated  for  President,  he  had  written  an 


1  See  letter  of  R.  Toombs  to  J.  J.  Crittenden,  Life  of  Crittenden,  Cole- 
man,  vol.  i.  p.  365.  Toombs  wrote,  April  25th :  "  I  saw  General  Taylor 
and  talked  fully  with  him,  and,  while  he  stated  he  had  given  and  would 
give  no  pledges  either  way  about  the  proviso,  he  gave  me  clearly  to  un- 
derstand that  if  it  was  passed  he  would  sign  it.  My  course  became  in- 
stantly fixed.  I  would  not  hesitate  to  oppose  the  proviso,  even  to  the 
extent  of  a  dissolution  of  the  Union." 

8  Memoir  of  Thurlow  Weed,  p.  177 ;  see  also  New  York  Tribune  of 
Feb.  23d ;  Wilson's  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power,  vol.  ii.  p.  259.  Han- 
nibal Hamlin  wrote  me,  Aug.  23d,  1889 :  "  In  answer  to  your  inquiry,  I  can 
inform  you  that  the  statement  made  by  Mr.  Wilson  to  which  you  refer  is 
correct  and  accurate.  You  will  find  a  corroboration  of  it  in  the  Life  or 
Memoirs  of  Thurlow  Weed."  Wilson  said  in  the  Senate,  July  9th,  1856 : 
"  It  is  said  that  the  Senator  from  Georgia  [Toombs]  and  others  talked  very 
plain  to  General  Taylor  in  1850  about  a  dissolution  of  the  Union,  and  that 
General  Taylor  intimated  to  them  pretty  distinctly  that  the  Union  was  to 
be  preserved  and  the  laws  of  the  country  executed."  Toombs  was  present 
and  made  an  immediate  reply  to  a  portion  of  Wilson's  speech,  but  did  not 
in  any  way  contradict  this  statement.  Congressional  Globe,  vol.  xxxiii.  p. 
857.  Stephens  and  Toombs,  in  letters  to  the  New  York  Herald  in  1876, 
denied  this  story.  See  New  York  Herald,  June  13th  and  Aug.  8th,  1876. 
In  this  connection  see  letter  of  Stephens  written  directly  after  the  death 
of  General  Taylor,  Life  of  Stephens,  Johnston  and  Browne,  p.  258. 


CH.  II.]  THE  REAL  DANGER  135 

emphatic  letter  to  his  son-in-law,  Jefferson  Davis,  in  which 
he  had  maintained  that  the  South  must  resist  boldly  and 
decisively  the  encroachments  of  the  North  ;  and  the  South- 
erners had  counted  much  on  his  assistance.  He  now,  how- 
ever, looked  upon  several  Southern  members  as  conspirators, 
and  Jefferson  Davis  as  their  chief.1  If  we  lay  aside  the 
speeches  in  Congress  as  merely  threats  of  irate  Southerners, 
and  get  at  Southern  sentiment  from  legislative  resolutions, 
from  expressions  of  the  press,  and  from  public  meetings,  it 
is  undeniable  that  had  the  Wilmot  proviso  passed  Congress, 
or  had  slavery  been  abolished  in  the  District  of  Columbia, 
the  Southern  convention  for  which  arrangements  were 
making  would  have  been  a  very  different  affair  from  the 
one  that  actually  did  assemble  at  Nashville.  Steps  would 
undoubtedly  have  been  taken  towards  disunion ;  and  while 
resolute  action  of  the  President  was  certain  to  arouse  the 
dormant  Union  feeling  in  the  South,  his  task  would  have 
been  more  difficult  than  was  that  of  General  Jackson,  for 
he  would  have  to  contend  with  more  States  than  South 
Carolina. 

A  change  in  Southern  sentiment  is,  however,  noticeable 
shortly  after  the  introduction  of  Clay's  compromise  resolu- 
tions. This  was  assisted  by  a  vote  in  the  House  of  Kepre- 
sentatives,  laying  on  the  table  a  resolution  which  provided 
for  the  application  of  the  Wilmot  proviso  to  the  territory 
east  of  California.8  Clay's  speech  influenced  powerfully  the 
opinion  of  Southern  Whigs.  From  the  beginning  of  Febru- 
ary, it  is  easy  to  trace  the  growth  of  a  Southern  sentiment 
favorable  to  the  admission  of  California,  if  only  the  Wilmot 


1  Memoir  of  Thurlow  Weed,  p.  177.  "  We  firmly  believe  that  there  are 
sixty  members  of  Congress  who  this  day  desire  a  dissolution  of  the  Union, 
and  are  plotting  to  effect  it."— New  York  Tribune,  editorial,  Feb.  23d. 

*  The  resolution  was  that  of  Root,  of  Ohio.  The  vote  to  table  was  105 
yeas,  75  nays.  Thirty-two  Northern  members  voted  to  defeat  the  Wilmot 
proviso,  eighteen  of  whom  were  Democrats  and  fourteen  Whigs.  There 
were  twenty-seven  absentees  from  the  free  States.  Wilson,  Rise  and  Fall 
of  the  Slave  Power,  vol.  ii.  p.  222. 


136  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1860 

proviso  were  not  insisted  upon  for  New  Mexico,  and  slavery 
were  allowed  to  remain  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  This 
by  no  means  pleased  the  knot  of  Southern  disunionists,  who 
desired  nothing  better  than  the  passage  by  Congress  of  the 
Wilmot  proviso.1  In  that  event  they  had  well-grounded 
hopes  that  they  could  unite  the  South  in  their  views ;  then 
they  would  give  their  ultimatum,  and,  if  it  were  rejected, 
they  would  dissolve  the  Union.  Efforts,  indeed,  were  made 
by  the  extreme  Southern  Democrats  to  check  the  slowly 
rising  Union  sentiment.  Their  aim  was  to  resist  the  admis- 
sion of  California,  and  to  make  the  resistance  a  sectional 
shibboleth  in  place  of  opposition  to  the  Wilmot  proviso.2 

While,  thus,  the  fear  of  a  formal  secession  from  the  Union, 
such  as  took  place  eleven  years  later,  had  not  at  this  time 
sufficient  foundation,  there  was  danger  in  the  adjournment 
of  Congress  without  provision  for  the  matters  in  dispute.* 
The  war  of  legislative  declarations,  of  resolutions,  of  public 
meetings,  would  continue,  and  inflammatory  writing  in  the 
press  would  not  cease.  Northern  legislative  action,  support- 
ed by  public  sentiment,  would  not  only  make  it  difficult,  but 
impossible,  to  recover  a  fugitive  slave.  On  the  other  hand, 
it  was  probable  that  most  of  the  Southern  States  would  by 
way  of  retaliatory  legislation  pass  laws  to  prevent  the  sale  of 
Northern  products  by  retail  in  their  limits.4  The  governor 
of  Virginia,  John  B.  Floyd,  proposed  to  his  legislature  a  sys- 


1  New  York  Tribune,  Feb.  4th.  See  also  Benton's  Thirty  Years'  View. 
"  I  am  pained  to  say  that  I  fear  that  there  are  some  Southern  men  who  do 
not  wish  a  settlement." — Letter  of  C.  S.  Morehead,  M.C.  from  Kentucky, 
to  J.  J.  Crittenden,  Life  of  Crittenden,  Coleman,  vol.  i.  p.  362. 

*  See  New  York  Tribune,  Feb.  25th  and  March  13th ;  also  the  Mobile 
Advertiser,  the  Richmond  Enquirer,  Columbia  (S.  C.)  Telegraph,  Charles- 
ton (S.  C.)  Courier,  Richmond  Whig,  for  February. 

*  "  In  the  Senate  there  are  eight  Southern  senators  and  in  the  House 
thirty  members  from  the  same  section  who  are  organized  as  disunionists 
and  are  opposed  to  any  compromise  whatever  looking  to  the  perpetuity 
of  the  Union." — Washington  correspondence  New  York  Tribune,  Feb.  2d. 

*  Life  of  Crittenden,  Coleman,  vol.  i.  p.  363. 


CH.H]  DANIEL  WEBSTER  137 

tern  of  taxation  of  the  products  of  those  states  which  would 
not  deliver  up  fugitive  slaves.1  A  suspension  of  intercourse 
between  the  two  sections  would  follow,  and  the  situation 
would  be  strained  to  the  utmost.  If,  indeed,  armed  con- 
flicts at  various  points  did  not  result  from  the  excited  feel- 
ing, it  was  certain  that  the  harmony  which  should  subsist 
between  the  parts  of  a  federal  Union  would  be  utterly  de- 
stroyed ;  and  after  months  or  even  years  of  such  a  state  of 
mutual  repulsion,  it  could  only  end  in  compromise,  peace- 
able separation,  or  war.' 

Two  of  the  great  senatorial  triumvirate  had  spoken ;  the 
Senate  and  the  country  had  yet  to  hear  the  greatest  of  them 
all.  Daniel  Webster  spoke  on  the  compromise  resolutions 
the  7th  of  March.  In  the  course  of  this  work,  whenever 
possible,  his  precise  words  have  been  used,  in  narration  and 
illustration;  for  in  intellectual  endowment  Webster  sur- 
passed all  of  our  public  men.  ]STo  one  understood  the  fun- 
damental principles  of  our  polity  better ;  no  one  approached 
his  wonderful  power  of  expression.  It  seemed  that  the  lan- 
guage of  the  constitutional  lawyer  who  laid  down  principles 
of  law  that  the  profound  legal  mind  of  Marshall  fixed  in  an 
immutable  judicial  decision,  and  who,  at  the  same  time, 
could  make  abstruse  points  clear  and  carry  conviction  to  the 
understanding  of  men  who  were  untrained  in  logic  or  in  law, 
was  best  lilted  to  guide  us  through  the  maze  of  constitu- 
tional interpretation  in  which  our  history  abounds.  Indeed, 
the  political  history  of  the  country  for  twenty-seven  years 
preceding  1850  might  be  written  as  well  and  fully  from  the 
speeches,  state  papers,  and  letters  of  Webster  as  the  story  of 


» The  Liberator,  April. 

*  "  I  am  not  one  of  those  who,  either  at  the  commencement  of  the  ses- 
sion or  at  any  time  during  its  progress,  have  believed  that  there  was 
present  any  actual  danger  to  the  existence  of  the  Union.  But  I  am  one 
of  those  who  believe  that,  if  this  agitation  is  continued  for  one  or  two 
years  longer,  no  man  can  foresee  the  dreadful  consequences." — Clay,  Sen* 
ate,  May  21st. 


138  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1850 

the  latter  days  of  the  Roman  republic  from  the  like  material 
of  Cicero  which  has  come  down  to  us.1 

As  an  orator,  Webster  has  been  compared  in  simplicity  to 
Demosthenes  and  in  profundity  to  Burke.2  This  is  the  high- 
est praise.  The  wonderful  effect  of  his  oratory  is  strikingly 
told  by  George  Ticknor,  who,  fresh  from  a  long  intercourse 
with  the  most  distinguished  men  in  England  and  on  the 
Continent,  went  to  hear  "Webster  deliver  his  Plymouth  ora- 
tion. Ticknor  writes :  "  I  was  never  so  excited  by  public 
speaking  before  in  my  life.  Three  or  four  times  I  thought 
my  temples  would  burst  with  the  gush  of  blood ;"  and,  though 
from  his  youth  an  intimate  friend  of  Webster's,  he  was  so 
impressed  that  "  when  I  came  out  I  was  almost  afraid  to 
come  near  him.  It  seemed  to  me  as  if  he  was  like  the  mount 
that  might  not  be  touched,  and  that  burned  with  fire."' 
Thomas  Marshall,  of  Kentucky,  heard  the  reply  to  Hayne, 
and  when  Webster  came  to  the  peroration  he  "  listened  as 
to  one  inspired,  and  finally  thought  he  could  see  a  halo 
around  the  orator's  head  like  what  one  sees  in  the  old  pict- 
ures of  saints  and  martyrs."  * 

The  diction  of  Webster  was  formed  by  a  grateful  study  of 
Shakespeare  and  Milton ;  through  his  communion  with  these 
masters,  his  whole  soul  was  thoroughly  attuned  to  the  high- 


1  "  His  ideas,  his  thoughts  [are]  spread  over  every  page  of  your  annals 
for  near  half  a  century.  His  ideas,  his  thoughts  [are]  impressed  upon 
and  inseparable  from  the  mind  of  his  country  and  the  spirit  of  the  age." 
— Senate  speech  of  W.  H.  Seward,  Aug.  14th,  1852.  "  Whoever  in  after- 
times  shall  write  the  history  of  the  United  States  for  the  last  forty 
years  will  write  the  life  of  Daniel  Webster."— Edward  Everett,  Oct.  27th, 
1852. 

*  John  Adams,  who  was  present  at  the  trial  of  Warren  Hastings,  and 
had  heard  Pitt  and  Fox,  Burke  and  Sheridan,  wrote  to  Webster,  after 
reading  his  Plymouth  oration :  "  Mr.  Burke  is  no  longer  entitled  to  the 
praise — the  most  consummate  orator  of  modern  times."     Lodge,  p.  123. 

'  Letter  of  Ticknor  from  Plymouth,  Dec.  21st,  1820,  life  of  Ticknor, 
vol.  i.  p.  330. 

*  William   Schouler,   Personal    and    Political   Recollections,  Boston 
Journal,  Dec.  10th}  1870. 


CH.  II]  DANIEL  WEBSTER  139 

est  conceptions  and  purest  harmonies  of  our  literature.  He  is 
one  of  the  few  orators  whose  speeches  are  read  as  literature. 
He  was  our  greatest  lawyer,1  yet  in  a  bad  cause  he  was 
not  a  good  advocate,  for  he  had  not  the  flexibility  of  mind 
which  makes  the  worse  appear  the  better  reason;  but  in  cases 
apparently  hopeless,  with  the  right  on  his  side,  he  won  impos- 
ing triumphs.3  lie  was  our  greatest  Secretary  of  State.  He 
had,  said  Sumner,  "  by  the  successful  and  masterly  negotia- 
tion of  the  treaty  of  Washington"  earned  the  title  of  "De- 
fender of  Peace." 8 

The  Graces  presided  at  his  birth.  His  growth  developed 
the  strong  physical  constitution  with  which  nature  had  en- 
dowed him  equally  with  a  massive  brain.  His  was  a  sound 
mind  in  a  sound  body.  His  physical  structure  was  magnif- 
icent, his  face  handsome ;  he  had  the  front  of  Jove  him- 
self.4 "  He  is,"  said  Carlyle,  "  a  magnificent  specimen.  .  .  . 
As  a  logic-fencer,  or  parliamentary  Hercules,  one  would  in- 
cline to  back  him  at  first  sight  against  all  the  extant  world." ' 
"  Webster,"  said  Henry  Hallam,  "  approaches  as  nearly  to 
the  beau  ideal  of  a  republican  senator  as  any  man  that  I 
have  ever  seen  in  the  course  of  my  life." '  Josiah  Quincy 
speaks  of  him  as  a  "figure  cast  in  heroic  mould,  and 
which  represented  the  ideal  of  American  manhood."7  He 
was  well  described  by  the  bard  he  loved  so  well :  "  How 
noble  in  reason!  how  infinite  in  faculties!  in  form  and 
moving,  how  express  and  admirable !  in  action,  how  like 
an  angel!  in  apprehension,  how  like  a  god!"  On  the 
basis  of  this  extraordinary  natural  ability  was  built  the 


1  "  Whatever  else  concerning  him  has  been  controverted  by  anybody, 
the  fifty  thousand  lawyers  of  the  United  States  conceded  to  him  an  un- 
approachable supremacy  at  the  bar." — Seward's  eulogy  in  the  Senate. 

2  This  is  remarked  by  the  Westminster  Review,  Jan.,  1853. 

8  Speech  before  the  Whig  Convention  at  Boston,  Sept.,  1846,  Rise  and 
Fall  of  the  Slave  Power,  Wilson,  vol.  ii.  p.  119. 

*  See  Lodge,  p.  195.  •  Curtis,  vol.  ii.  p.  21. 

•  Ibid.,  p.  27.  '  Figures  of  the  Past,  p.  267. 


140  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1856 

superstructure  of  a  systematic  education.  His  devoted  fa> 
ther  mortgaged  the  New  Hampshire  farm  to  send  him  to 
college,  and  three  years  of  laborious  study  of  law  followed 
the  regular  course  at  Dartmouth.  Years  afterwards  he  re- 
paid his  Alma  Mater  for  her  gifts  when  he  pleaded,  and 
not  in  vain,  for  her  chartered  rights  in  invincible  logic  be- 
fore the  most  solemn  tribunal  of  the  country.  Intellectually, 
Webster  was  a  man  of  slow  growth.  The  zenith  of  his 
power  was  not  reached  until  he  made  the  celebrated  reply  to 
Hayne,  and  he  was  then  forty-eight  years  old. 

In  union  with  this  grand  intellect  were  social  qualities  of 
a  high  order.  His  manners  were  charming,  his  nature  was 
genial,  and  he  had  a  quick  sense  of  seemly  humor.  Carlyle 
speaks  of  him  as  "  a  dignified,  perfectly  bred  man." '  Har- 
riet Martineau  says  "  he  would  illuminate  an  evening  by 
telling  stories,  cracking  jokes,  or  smoothly  discoursing  to 
the  perfect  felicity  of  the  logical  part  of  one's  constitution." a 
Ticknor,  who  was  so  impressed  with  the  majestic  delivery  of 
the  orator,  speaks  of  his  being  "  as  gay  and  playful  as  a 
kitten." '  The  social  intercourse  between  Webster  and  Lord 
Ashburton,  while  they  were  at  work  on  the  Washington 
treaty,  is  one  of  those  international  amenities  that  grace  the 
history  of  diplomacy.  This  treaty,  by  which  we  gained 
substantial  advantages  and  England  made  honorable  conces- 
sions, was  not  negotiated  through  stately  protocols,  but  was 
concluded  through  a  friendly  correspondence  and  during  the 
interchange  of  refined  social  civilities.  During  this  transac- 
tion Ashburton  was  impressed  with  "  the  upright  and  hon- 
orable character"  of  Webster.4  As  late  as  1845  there  might 
be  seen  engravings  which  were  an  indication  of  the  popular 
notion  that  honesty  was  his  cardinal  virtue.6 


Curtis,  vol.  ii.  p.  21. 

Retrospect  of  American  Travel,  vol.  i.  p.  147. 

Letter,  Dec.  23d,  1820,  Life  of  Ticknor,  vol.  i.  pp.  331  and  379. 

Memoir  of  Everett,  Webster's  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  cxxiv. 

Sir  Charles  Lyell  saw  "  a  most  formidable  likeness  of  Daniel  Web- 


CH.II.]  DANIEL  WEBSTER  141 

He  had  strong  domestic  feelings.  He  honored  his  father, 
loved  his  brother,  and  was  devoted  to  his  wife  and  children ; 
his  affection  for  his  many  friends  was  pure  and  disinterested. 
He  had  during  his  life  a  large  share  of  domestic  affliction, 
and  his  deep  and  sincere  grief  shows  that  he  had  a  large 
heart  as  well  as  a  great  head.  He  had  a  constant  belief  in 
revealed  as  well  as  natural  religion.1 

His  healthy  disposition  was  displayed  even  in  his  recrea- 
tions. He  was  a  true  disciple  of  Izaak  Walton,  and  he  also 
delighted  in  the  chase.  Few  men  have  loved  nature  more. 
Those  grand  periods  that  will  never  cease  to  delight  lovers 
of  oratory  were  many  of  them  conned  at  his  Marshfield  re- 
treat, where  he  worshipped  the  sea  and  did  reverence  to  the 
rising  sun.  After  a  winter  of  severe  work  in  his  declining 
years,  he  gets  to  Marshfield  in  May,  and  writes :  "  I  grow 
strong  every  hour.  The  giants  grew  strong  again  by  touch- 
ing the  earth  ;  the  same  effect  is  produced  on  me  by  touch- 
ing the  salt  sea-shore." a 

The  distinctive  virtue  of  Webster  was  his  patriotism.  He 
loved  his  country  as  few  men  have  loved  it ;  he  had  a  pro- 
found reverence  for  the  Constitution  and  its  makers.  He 
spoke  truly  when  he  said :  "  I  am  an  American,  and  I  know 
no  locality  but  America ;  that  is  my  country ;"  *  and  he  was 
deeply  in  earnest  when  he  gave  utterance  to  the  sentiment, 
"  I  was  bred,  indeed  I  might  almost  say  I  was  born,  in  ad- 
miration of  our  political  institutions."4  Webster's  great 
work  was  to  inspire  the  country  with  a  strong  and  enduring 


ster,  being  an  engraving  published  in  Connecticut.  Leaning  over  the 
portrait  of  the  great  statesman  is  represented  an  aged  man  holding  a  lan- 
tern in  his  hand,  and,  lest  the  meaning  of  so  classical  an  allusion  should 
be  lost,  we  read  below : 

" '  Diogenes  his  lantern  needs  no  more — 
An  honest  man  is  found,  the  search  is  o'er.' " 

Second  Visit  to  United  States,  vol.  i  p.  55. 

1  Curtis,  vol.  ii.  p.  333.  *  Ibid.,  p.  377. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  448.  *  Ibid.,  p.  518. 


142  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1860 

national  feeling ;  and  he  impressed  upon  the  people  every- 
where, except  in  the  cotton  States,  a  sacred  love  for  the 
Union.  How  well  his  life-work  was  done  was  seen,  less  than 
nine  years  after  he  died,  in  the  zealous  appeal  to  arms  for 
the  defence  of  the  nation.  In  the  sleepless  nights  before  his 
death,  no  sight  was  so  welcome  to  his  eyes  as  the  lantern  he 
saw  through  the  windows  placed  at  the  mast-head  of  the 
little  shallop,  in  order  that  he  might  discern,  fluttering  at 
the  mast,  the  national  flag,  the  emblem  of  that  Union  to 
which  he  had  consecrated  the  best  thoughts  and  purest  ef- 
forts of  his  life. 

During  the  last  twenty  years  of  his  career  Webster  had  a 
great  desire  to  be  President.  Three  times  he  was  exceed- 
ingly anxious  for  the  Whig  nomination,  and  thought  his 
chances  were  good  for  getting  it ;  but  the  nomination  even 
never  came  to  him.  Indeed,  he  always  overrated  the  prob- 
abilities of  his  success.  He  was  of  that  class  of  statesmen 
who  were  stronger  before  the  country  than  before  the  polit- 
ical convention.  Had  he  ever  been  named  as  his  party's 
choice,  he  would  unquestionably  have  been  a  strong  candi- 
date ;  but  he  never  had  the  knack  of  arousing  the  enthusiasm 
of  the  party,  which  Clay  possessed  in  so  eminent  degree. 
Nor  did  his  frequent  action  independent  of  political  consid- 
erations commend  him  to  the  men  who  shaped  the  action  of 
the  party  convention.  George  Ticknor  said,  in  1831,  Web- 
ster "  belongs  to  no  party ;  but  he  has  uniformly  contended 
for  the  great  and  essential  principles  of  our  government  on 
all  occasions ;"'  and  this  was  to  a  large  extent  true  of  him 
during  his  whole  life.  His  tendency  to  break  away  from 
party  trammels  was  shown  more  than  once  during  his  long 
career.  In  1833,  as  we  have  seen,*  he  supported  with  enthu- 
siasm the  Democratic  President,  and  would  not  assent  to 
the  compromise  devised  by  the  leader  of  his  party.  But  the 
crowning  act  of  independence  was  when  he  remained  in  the 


1  Life  of  George  Ticknor,  vol.  i.  p.  393.  '  See  p.  60. 


CH.II]  DANIEL  WEBSTER  143 

cabinet  of  President  Tyler,  when  all  his  colleagues  resigned. 
The  motive  for  this  action  was  the  desire  to  complete  the 
negotiation  of  the  Ashburton  treaty,  for  Webster  felt  that 
he  of  all  men  was  best  fitted  for  that  work ;  and  his  heart 
was  earnestly  enlisted  in  the  effort  to  remove  the  difficulties 
in  the  way  of  a  peaceful  settlement,  and  to  avert  a  war  be- 
tween England  and  the  United  States.  His  course,  although 
eminently  patriotic,  was  certain  to  interfere  with  his  politi- 
cal advancement.  For  he  resisted  the  imperious  dictation 
of  Clay,  he  breasted  the  popular  clamor  of  his  party,  and 
he  pursued  his  own  ideas  of  right  despite  the  fact  that  he 
had  to  encounter  the  tyranny  of  public  opinion  which  De 
Tocqueville  has  so  well  described. 

The  French,  who  make  excuses  for  men  of  genius  as  the 
Athenians  were  wont  to  do,  have  a  proverb,  "  It  belongs  to 
great  men  to  have  great  defects."  Webster  exemplified  this 
maxim.  He  was  fond  of  wine  and  brandy,  and  at  times 
drank  deep ;  he  was  not  scrupulous  in  observing  the  seventh 
commandment.  Though  born  and  reared  in  poverty,  he 
had  little  idea  of  the  value  of  money  and  of  the  sacredness 
of  money  obligations.  He  had  no  conception  of  the  duty  of 
living  within  his  means,  and  he  was  habitually  careless  in 
regard  to  the  payment  of  his  debts.  His  friends  more  than 
once  discharged  his  obligations ;  besides  such  assistance,  he 
accepted  from  them  at  other  times  presents  of  money,  but 
he  would  have  rejected  their  bounty  with  scorn  had  there 
gone  with  it  an  expectation  of  influencing  his  public  action. 
This  failing  was  the  cause  of  serious  charges  being  preferred 
against  him.  He  was  accused  of  being  in  the  pay  of  the 
United  States  Bank,  but  this  was  not  true ; 1  and  he  was 
charged  with  a  corrupt  misuse  of  the  secret  service  fund 
while  Secretary  of  State  under  Tyler,  but  from  this  accusa- 
tion he  was  fully  and  fairly  exonerated." 


1  Curtis,  vol.  i.  p.  498. 

9  Ibid.,  vol.  ii.  p.  267 ;  Memoirs  of  John  Quincy  Adams,  vol.  xii.  pp.  260, 
263 ;  Life  of  Jefferson  Davis  by  his  Wife,  vol.  i.  pp.  248  and  634. 


144  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1860 

Considering  that  it  was  only  by  strenuous  effort  that  the 
son  of  the  New  Hampshire  farmer  obtained  the  highest  rank 
in  political  and  social  life,1  it  is  hard  to  believe  that  he  was 
constitutionally  indolent,  as  one  of  his  biographers  states. 
When  sixty-seven  years  old  it  was  his  practice  to  study  from 
five  to  eleven  in  the  morning ;  he  was  in  the  Supreme  Court 
from  eleven  to  three,  and  the  rest  of  the  day  in  the  Senate 
until  ten  in  the  evening.  When  he  had  the  time  to  devote 
himself  to  his  legal  practice,  his  professional  income  was 
large. 

Such,  in  the  main,  if  Daniel  Webster  had  died  on  the 
morning  of  the  seventh  day  of  March,  1850,  would  have 
been  the  estimate  of  his  character  that  would  come  down 
to  this  generation.  But  his  speech  in  the  Senate  on  that 
day  placed  a  wide  gulf  between  him  and  most  of  the  men 
who  were  best  fitted  to  transmit  his  name  to  posterity. 
Partisan  malignity  has  magnified  his  vices,  depreciated  his 
virtues,  and  distorted  his  motives. 

Let  us  now  consider  this  speech,  which  the  orator  him- 
self thought  the  most  important  effort  of  his  life.2  The 
most  signal  event  in  the  long  session  of  Congress  we  are 
?ifc  present  considering,  it  was  almost  as  momentous  in  the 
history  of  the  country  as  it  was  in  the  life  of  Webster. 
It  is  the  only  speech  in  our  history  which  is  named  by  the 
date  of  its  delivery,  and  the  general  acquiescence  in  this 
designation  goes  to  show  that  it  was  a  turning-point  in  the 
action  of  Congress,  in  popular  sentiment,  and  in  the  history 
of  the  country. 

Webster  began :  "  I  wish  to  speak  to-day,  not  as  a  Massa- 
chusetts man,  nor  as  a  Northern  man,  but  as  an  American. 
...  It  is  not  to  be  denied  that  we  live  in  the  midst  of 
strong  agitations,  and  are  surrounded  by  very  considerable 
dangers  to  our  institutions  and  government.  The  imprisoned 
winds  are  let  loose.  The  East,  the  North,  and  the  stormy 


1  E.  P.  Whipple,  North  American  Review,  July,  1844. 
«Curtii>Yol.ii.p.529. 


CH.II.]  WEBSTER'S  SEVENTH-OF-MARCH  SPEECH  145 

South  combine  to  throw  the  whole  sea  into  commotion,  to 
toss  its  billows  to  the  skies,  and  disclose  its  profoundest 
depths.  ...  I  speak  to-day  for  the  preservation  of  the 
Union.  'Hear  me  for  my  cause.' "  He  spoke  of  the  Mexi- 
can war  as  having  been  "  prosecuted  for  the  purpose  of  the 
acquisition  of  territory.  ...  As  the  acquisition  was  to  be 
south  of  the  line  of  the  United  States,  in  warm  climates  and 
countries,  it  was  naturally,  I  suppose,  expected  by  the  South 
that  whatever  acquisitions  were  made  in  that  region  would 
be  added  to  the  slave-holding  portion  of  the  United  States. 
Very  little  of  accurate  information  was  possessed  of  the  real 
physical  character  either  of  California  or  New  Mexico,  and 
events  have  not  turned  out  as  was  expected.  Both  Cali- 
fornia and  New  Mexico  are  likely  to  come  in  as  free  States, 
and  therefore  some  degree  of  disappointment  and  surprise 
has  resulted.  ...  It  is  ...  the  prohibition  of  slavery  which 
has  contributed  to  raise  .  .  .  the  dispute  as  to  the  propriety 
of  the  admission  of  California  into  the  Union  under  this 
Constitution." 

The  orator  then  proceeded  to  discuss  slavery  from  a  gen- 
eral historical  standpoint,  whence  an  allusion  followed  nat- 
urally to  the  different  view  taken  of  the  institution  at  the 
North  and  at  the  South.  It  is  too  long  to  quote,  but  it  is  a 
fair,  dispassionate  statement,  and  rises  to  the  level  of  a  judg- 
ment by  a  philosophical  historian.1  He  regrets  the  sepa- 
ration of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  Speaking  with 
the  utmost  feeling  on  the  subject,  he  expresses  the  opinion 
that  the  schism  might  have  been  prevented ;  and  he  then 
comments  upon  the  matter  in  words  pregnant  with  wis- 
dom that  not  only  applied  with  force  to  the  slavery  ques- 
tion in  1850,  but  have  a  meaning  for  all  controversies  to  all 
time. 

At  the  time  the  Constitution  was  adopted,  there  was,  he 
said,  "  no  diversity  of  opinion  between  the  North  and  the 
South  upon  the  subject  of  slavery.  It  will  be  found  that 


1  See  Webster's  Works,  vol.  v.  p. 
L— 10 


146  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1850 

both  parts  of  the  country  held  it  equally  an  evil,  a  moral 
and  political  evil.  .  .  .  The  eminent  men,  the  most  eminent 
men,  and  nearly  all  the  conspicuous  politicians  of  the  South 
held  the  same  sentiments — that  slavery  was  an  evil,  a  blight, 
a  scourge,  and  a  curse.  .  .  .  There  was,  if  not  an  entire  una- 
nimity, a  general  concurrence  of  sentiment  running  through 
the  whole  community,  and  especially  entertained  by  the 
eminent  men  of  all  parts  of  the  country.  But  soon  a  change 
began  at  the  North  and  the  South,  and  a  difference  of  opin- 
ion showed  itself  ;  the  North  growing  much  more  warm  and 
strong  against  slavery,  and  the  South  growing  much  more 
warm  and  strong  in  its  support."  The  reason  that  the  South 
ceased  to  think  it  an  evil  and  a  scourge,  but,  on  the  other 
hand,  maintained  that  it  was  "  a  great  religious,  social,  and 
moral  blessing,"  was  "  owing  to  the  rapid  growth  and  sud- 
den extension  of  the  cotton  plantations  of  the  South." l 

In  reply  to  Calhoun's  statement  that  "  there  has  been  a 
majority  all  along  in  favor  of  the  North,"  Webster  averred 
that  "  no  man  acquainted  with  the  history  of  the  Union  can 
deny  that  the  general  lead  in  the  politics  of  the  country,  for 
three-fourths  of  the  period  that  has  elapsed  since  the  adop- 
tion of  the  Constitution,  has  been  a  Southern  lead."  He  di- 
rected attention  to  the  events  that  brought  about  the  an- 
nexation of  Texas,  referred  at  length  to  the  joint  resolution 
which  allowed  four  more  States  to  be  formed  out  of  her  ter- 
ritory ;  and  laid  great  stress  upon  the  stipulation  that  the 
States  which  would  be  created  south  of  the  line  of  36°  30' — 
and  this  embraced  nearly  the  whole  of  Texas — were  permit- 
ted to  have  slavery,  and  would  without  question  be  slave 
States.  To  that  "  this  government  is  solemnly  pledged  by 
law  and  contract  .  .  .  and  I  for  one  mean  to  fulfil  it,  be- 
cause I  will  not  violate  the  faith  of  the  government.  .  .  .  Now 
as  to  California  and  New  Mexico,  I  hold  slavery  to  be  ex- 
cluded from  those  territories  by  a  law  even  superior  to  that 
which  admits  and  sanctions  it  in  Texas.  I  mean  the  law  of 


1  See  p.  26. 


CH.II.]  WEBSTER'S  SEVENTH-OF-MARCH   SPEECH  147 

nature,  of  physical  geography,  the  law  of  the  formation  of 
the  earth.  That  law  settles  forever,  with  a  strength  beyond 
all  terms  of  human  enactment,  that  slavery  cannot  exist  in 
California  or  New  Mexico.  .  .  .  What  is  there  in  New  Mex- 
ico that  could  by  any  possibility  induce  anybody  to  go  there 
with  slaves  ?  There  are  some  narrow  strips  of  tillable  land 
on  the  borders  of  the  rivers  ;  but  the  rivers  themselves  dry 
up  before  midsummer  is  gone.  .  .  .  And  who  expects  to  see 
a  hundred  black  men  cultivating  tobacco,  corn,  cotton,  rice, 
or  anything  else,  on  lands  in  New  Mexico,  made  fertile  only 
by  irrigation  ?"  Considering  that "  both  California  and  New 
Mexico  are  destined  to  be  free,  ...  I  would  not  take  pains 
uselessly  to  reaffirm  an  ordinance  of  nature,  nor  to  re-enact 
the  will  of  God.  I  would  put  in  no  Wilmot  proviso  for  the 
mere  purpose  of  a  taunt  or  reproach.  .  .  .  Wherever  there 
is  a  substantive  good  to  be  done,  wherever  there  is  a  foot 
of  land  to  be  prevented  from  becoming  slave  territory,  I  am 
ready  to  assert  the  principle  of  the  exclusion  of  slavery.  I 
am  pledged  to  it  from  the  year  1837 ;  I  have  been  pledged 
to  it  again  and  again ;  and  I  will  perform  those  pledges ; 
but  I  will  not  do  a  thing  unnecessarily  that  wounds  the  feel- 
ings of  others,  or  that  does  discredit  to  my  own  under- 
standing." 

As  regards  the  non-rendition  of  fugitive  slaves,  Webster 
thought  that  the  complaints  of  the  South  were  just,  and  that 
the  North  had  lacked  in  her  duty ;  and  he  proposed,  with 
some  amendments,  to  support  the  fugitive  slave  bill  which 
had  been  drawn  up  and  introduced  by  Senator  Mason  of 
Virginia.  He  referred  to  the  abolition  societies  at  the  North, 
and  did  not  "  think  them  useful.  I  think  their  operations  for 
the  last  twenty  years  have  produced  nothing  good  or  valua- 
ble. .  .  .  The  violence  of  the  Northern  press  is  complained 
of."  But  "  the  press  is  violent  everywhere.  There  are  out- 
rageous reproaches  in  the  North  against  the  South,  and  there 
are  reproaches  as  vehement  in  the  South  against  the  North." 
There  is,  however,  "  no  solid  grievance  presented  by  the  South 
within  the  redress  of  the  government  .  .  .  but  the  want  of 


148  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1860 

a  proper  regard  to  the  injunction  of  the  Constitution  for  the 
delivery  of  fugitive  slaves." 

It  is  near  the  close  of  this  speech  that  occurs  the  fine  pas- 
sage depicting  the  utter  impossibility  of  peaceable  secession. 
"  Sir,  he  who  sees  these  States,  now  revolving  in  harmony 
around  a  common  centre,  and  expects  them  to  quit  their 
places  and  fly  off  without  convulsion,  may  look  the  next 
hour  to  see  the  heavenly  bodies  rush  from  their  spheres,  and 
jostle  against  each  other  in  the  realms  of  space,  without 
causing  the  wreck  of  the  universe."  And  in  his  peroration, 
which  in  eloquence  almost  equals  that  of  his  reply  to  Hayne, 
he  adjured  the  Senate  and  the  country, "  instead  of  speaking 
of  the  possibility  or  utility  of  secession,  instead  of  dwelling 
in  those  caverns  of  darkness,  instead  of  groping  with  those 
ideas  so  full  of  all  that  is  horrid  and  horrible,  let  us  come 
out  into  the  light  of  day ;  let  us  enjoy  the  fresh  air  of  lib- 
erty and  union.  Never  did  there  devolve  on  any  genera- 
tion of  men  higher  trusts  than  now  devolve  upon  us  for  the 
preservation  of  this  Constitution,  and  the  harmony  and  peace 
of  all  who  are  destined  to  live  under  it.  Let  us  make  our 
generation  one  of  the  strongest  and  brightest  links  in  that 
golden  chain  which  is  destined,  I  fondly  believe,  to  grapple 
the  people  of  all  the  States  to  this  Constitution  for  ages  to 
come." ! 

This  speech  of  Webster  had  been  long  and  anxiously 
awaited.  The  desire  was  great  to  know  what  position  he 
would  take  ;  the  curiosity  was  intense  to  know  whether  he 
would  support  the  compromise  or  would  join  the  anti-slav- 
ery Whigs  and  approve  the  plan  of  the  President.  It  had 
been  rumored  that  he,  in  connection  with  some  Southern  sen- 
ators, was  intending  to  prepare  a  scheme  of  adjustment  ;*  on 

1  The  quotations  are  taken  from  the  speech  as  printed  in  vol.  v.  of  Web- 
ster's Works.  The  whole  speech  is  well  worth  reading. 

*  National  Era,  March  7th,  1850;  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power, 
yol.  ii.  p.  149 ;  New  York  Herald  and  New  York  Journal  of  Commerce, 
Feb.  28th;  New  York  Tribune,  March  1st;  Correspondence  of  C.  A. 
Dana,  New  York  Tribune,  March  4th. 


OH.  II.]  WEBSTER'S  SEVENTH-OF-MARCH  SPEECH  149 

the  other  hand,  Giddings  and  other  Free-soilers  thought  that 
he  would  sustain  their  doctrines.1  Horace  Mann  did  not 
believe  that  Webster  would  compromise  the  great  question.* 
All  this  conjecture  was  idle.  More  than  six  weeks  before 
he  made  the  declaration  in  public,  he  had  given  Clay  to  un- 
derstand that  he  would  support  substantially  the  Kentucky 
senator's  scheme  of  compromise.3  Before  concurring  in  all 
the  details,  he  desired  to  give  the  subject  careful  considera- 
tion ;  and  between  the  time  of  his  interview  with  Clay  on 
January  21st  and  the  delivery  of  his  speech  he  consulted 
with  men  of  diverse  views.4  He  heard  every  side  advocated; 
he  saw  the  subject  in  all  its  bearings.  As  the  result  of  his 
mature  and  carefully  considered  judgment,  he  determined 
to  follow  his  own  first  impressions,  and  devote  himself  to 
the  advocacy  of  Clay's  plan, "  no  matter  what  might  befall 
himself  at  the  North." 6 

The  speech  produced  a  wonderful  sensation ;  none  other 
in  our  annals  had  an  immediate  effect  so  mighty  and  strik- 
ing. The  reply  to  Hayne  and  the  reply  to  Calhoun  have 
more  permanent  value,  and  their  influence  has  been  last- 
ing ;  the  7th  of  March  speech  dealt  with  slavery,  and  when 
the  slavery  question  ceased  to  be  an  issue  the  discourse  of 
Webster  lost  all  but  the  historical  interest.  A  careful  read- 
ing of  the  speech  now  fails  to  disclose  the  whole  reason  of 
its  harsh  reception  at  the  North.  It  is  probable  that  the 
matured  historical  view  will  be  that  Webster's  position  as 
to  the  application  of  the  Wilmot  proviso  to  New  Mexico 
was  statesmanship  of  the  highest  order.  In  1846, 1847,  and 
1848,  the  formal  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  territory  to 
be  acquired,  or  which  was  acquired  from  Mexico,  seemed  a 
vital  arid  practical  question.  The  latitude  of  the  territory 


1  History  of  the  Rebellion,  p.  323.  Giddings's  statement  that  Web- 
ster had  made  promises  to  anti-slavery  men  is  probably  a  mistake.  Set 
Curtis,  vol.  ii.  p.  402. 

8  March  4th,  Life,  p.  293.  8  Curtis,  vol.  ii.  p.  397. 

*  Lodge,  p.  322.  '  Curtis,  vol.  ii.  p.  897. 


150  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1850 

in  dispute  gave  reason  to  suppose  that  its  products  would  be 
those  of  the  cotton  States,  and  that  it  would  naturally  grav- 
itate towards  slave  institutions.  While  many  believed  that 
the  Mexican  law  sufficed  to  preserve  freedom  in  California 
and  New  Mexico,  it  nevertheless  was  good  policy  to  make 
extraordinary  appropriations  for  the  war  only  on  condition 
of  an  express  understanding  that  the  territory  acquired 
should  be  free.  But  in  1850  the  question  had  changed. 
California  had  decided  for  herself ;  and  the  more  important 
half  of  the  controversy  was  cut  off  by  the  action  of  the  peo- 
ple interested.  There  remained  New  Mexico.1  The  very 
fact  that  California  had  forbidden  slavery  was  an  excellent 
reason  for  believing  that  New  Mexico  would  do  likewise.  It 
had  now  become  known  that  while  the  latitude  of  New 
Mexico  assigned  her  to  the  domain  of  slavery,  the  altitude 
of  the  country  gave  her  a  different  climate  from  that  of  the 
slave  States,  and  subjected  her  to  different  economical  con- 
ditions. It  was  understood  that  neither  cotton,  tobacco, 
rice,  nor  sugar  could  be  raised,  and  no  one  in  1850  main- 
tained that  slave  labor  was  profitable  save  in  the  cultivation 
of  those  products.  The  correspondence  between  Webster 
and  the  delegate  to  Congress  from  New  Mexico  shows  that 
any  one  conversant  with  the  facts  knew  that  slavery  had 
not  the  smallest  chance  of  being  established  in  that  terri- 
tory.3 The  people  themselves  proved  that  no  Wilmot  pro- 


1  New  Mexico  then  comprised  the  westerly  portions  of  New  Mexico  as 
at  present  bounded,  and  Colorado,  Nevada,  and  Utah,  most  of  Arizona, 
and  the  southwesterly  part  of  Wyoming.  Narrative  and  Critical  History 
of  America,  Justin  Winsor,  vol.  vii.  p.  552. 

s  This  correspondence  was  published  in  many  of  the  newspapers  of  the 
day,  and  may  be  found  in  Webster's  Works,  vol.  vi.  p.  548.  Hugh  N. 
Smith,  the  delegate  from  New  Mexico,  under  date  of  April  9th,  wrote: 
"  New  Mexico  is  an  exceedingly  mountainous  country,  Santa  F6  itself 
being  twice  as  high  as  the  highest  point  of  the  Alleghanies,  and  nearly 
all  the  land  capable  of  cultivation  is  of  equal  height,  though  some  of  the 
valleys  have  less  altitude  above  the  sea.  The  country  is  cold.  Its  gen- 
eral agricultural  products  are  wheat  and  corn,  and  such  vegetables  aa 


CH.IL]  WEBSTER'S  SEVENTH-OF-MARCH  SPEECH  151 

viso  was  needed,  for  in  convention  assembled  in  May  they 
formed  a  State  government,  and  declared  for  the  absolute 
prohibition  of  slavery.  It  seems  that  Webster  had  studied 
this  territorial  question  more  deeply,  knew  the  facts  better, 
and  saw  clearer  than  his  detractors.1  It  certainly  is  no  lack 
of  consistency  in  a  public  man  to  change  his  action  in  con- 
formity with  the  change  in  circumstances.  The  end  desired 
was  to  have  California  and  New  Mexico  free ;  and  if  that 
could  be  gained  by  the  action  of  these  communities,  it  was 
surely  as  well  as  to  have  it  determined  by  a  formal  act  of 
Congress.  To  insist  upon  a  rigid  principle  when  it  is  no 
longer  applicable  or  necessary  is  not  good  politics ;  yet  great 
blame  has  been  attached  to  Webster  because  he  did  not  now 
insist  on  the  Wilmot  proviso.  Anti-slavery  writers  have 


grow  in  the  Northern  States  of  this  Union.  It  is  entirely  unsuited  for 
slave  labor.  Labor  is  exceedingly  abundant  and  cheap.  It  may  be  hired 
for  three  or  four  dollars  a  month,  in  quantity  quite  sufficient  for  carrying 
on  all  the  agriculture  of  the  territory.  There  is  no  cultivation  except 
by  irrigation,  and  there  is  not  a  sufficiency  of  water  to  irrigate  all  the 
land. 

"  As  to  the  existence  at  present  of  slavery  in  New  Mexico,  it  is  the  gen- 
eral understanding  that  it  has  been  altogether  abolished  by  the  laws  of 
Mexico ;  but  we  have  no  established  tribunals  which  have  pronounced  as 
yet  what  the  law  of  the  land  in  this  respect  is.  it  is  universally  consid- 
ered, however,  that  the  territory  is  altogether  a  free  territory.  I  know 
of  no  persons  in  the  country  who  are  treated  as  slaves,  except  such  as 
may  be  servants  to  gentlemen  visiting  or  passing  through  the  country. 
I  may  add  that  the  strongest  feeling  against  slavery  universally  prevails 
throughout  the  whole  territory,  and  I  suppose  it  quite  impossible  to  con- 
vey it  there,  and  maintain  it  by  any  means  whatever." 

1  Senator  Hale,  who  opposed  the  compromise,  and  at  this  time  criti- 
cised severely  Webster's  course,  said  in  the  Senate,  July  9th,  1856 :  "  Wise 
or  unwise,"  the  compromise  measures  of  1850  "had  succeeded  in  an 
eminent  degree  in  restoring  peace  to  the  country."  And  when  Con- 
gress assembled,  Dec.,  1853,  "it  was  literally  true,  I  believe,  at  the  time, 
...  as  Mr.  Webster  said,  that  there  was  not  a  single  foot  of  territory  on 
the  continent  where  this  great  question  was  not  settled  by  what  I  think 
Mr.  Webster  termed  an  irrepealable  law." — Congressional  Globe,  vol.  xzziii 
p.  846. 


152  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1861 

pointed  to  the  legislative  establishment  of  slavery  in  New 
Mexico  in  1859  as  proof  that  Webster  made  in  1850  a  fatal 
error  of  judgment.  But  the  practice  never  actually  existed 
in  that  territory,  and  the  act  of  1859  was  the  work  of  a 
coterie,  passed  for  political  effect.1 

The  historian  whose  sympathies  are  with  the  anti-slavery 
cause  of  1850 — and  it  seems  clear  that  he  can  most  truly 
write  the  story — can  by  no  means  commend  the  whole  of 
the  7th-of-March  speech.  The  orator  dwelt  upon  the  con- 
ditions of  the  annexation  of  Texas  at  too  great  a  length, 
for  the  bad  bargain  and  the  manner  in  which  it  was  made 
were  not  a  pleasant  recollection  to  the  North.  It  was  not 
necessary  to  lay  great  stress  upon  the  fact  that  more  slave 
States  could  be  created  out  of  Texas,  for,  while  it  is  obvious 
that  the  intention  was  to  remind  the  South  how  well  they 
had  fared  in  the  Union,  the  orator's  mode  of  treating  the 
subject  was  of  a  nature  to  irritate  the  North ;  and  all  the 
more,  because  his  argument  could  not  legally  be  impugned. 
Webster's  reference  to  the  abolition  societies  and  their  work 
brought  a  storm  of  indignation  upon  his  head  from  people 
who  were  not  used  to  suppress  their  voice  or  mince  their 
meaning.  Webster  was  wrong  in  his  estimate  of  the  aboli- 
tionists. Yet  similar  judgments  were  common ;  and  for  ten 
years  more  we  find  the  same  pleas  against  the  agitating  of 
slavery.  The  complete  answer  to  this  deprecation  was  given 
by  Lowell  for  once  and  all :  "  To  be  told  that  we  ought  not 
to  agitate  the  question  of  slavery,  when  it  is  that  which 
is  forever  agitating  us,  is  like  telling  a  man  with  the  fever 
and  ague  on  him  to  stop  shaking,  and  he  will  be  cured." a 

But  what  grieved  the  old  supporters  of  Webster  the  most 
was  his  severe  censure  of  the  North  for  their  action  in  re- 
gard to  fugitive  slaves.  The  bill  of  Mason,  which,  with 
some  amendments,  he  proposed  to  support,  was  a  stringent 


1  See  Chap.  X. 

•  Political  Essays,  p.  31.     This  essay  was  published  in  the  Atlantic 
Monthly  for  Oct.,  1860. 


CH.II.]  WEBSTER'S  SEVENTH-OF-KARCH  SPEECH  153 

measure ;  and  while  Webster's  own  idea  was  that  the  fugi- 
tive ought  to  have  a  jury  trial  in  case  he  denied  owing  ser- 
vice to  the  claimant,1  there  is  no  doubt  that  he  would  have 
voted  for  the  Mason  bill  pure  and  simple,  or,  had  he  been 
in  the  Senate  at  the  time,  for  the  actual  Fugitive  Slave  law 
passed  in  September,  rather  than  that  the  compromise 
should  fail.  It  was  thus  that  the  country  regarded,  and 
rightly,  his  position.  Webster's  remarks  on  this  subject 
are  those  of  an  advocate  bound  to  the  letter  of  the  law, 
fettered  by  technicality  and  overborne  by  precedent.  He 
does  not  take  a  broad,  statesmanlike  view,  drawn  indeed 
from  the  written  law,  but  adapted  to  changing  sentiments 
and  keeping  pace  with  the  progress  of  the  century ;  he  who 
had  taught  us  to  seize  the  essential  and  eternal  principles 
underlying  the  record  is  not  true  to  the  standard  which  he 
himself  erected.  Webster  could  see  "  an  ordinance  of  Nat- 
ure," and  the  "will  of  God"  written  on  the  mountains  and 
plateaus  of  New  Mexico,  but  he  failed  to  see  an  ordinance 
of  Nature  and  the  will  of  God  implanted  in  the  hearts  of 
men  that  led  them  to  refuse  their  assistance  in  reducing  to 
bondage  their  fellows,  whose  only  crime  had  been  desire 
for  liberty  and  escape  from  slavery.  These  feelings  in  the 
minds  of  men  of  Massachusetts  were,  in  Webster's  opinion, 
"  local  prejudices "  founded  on  "  unreal  ghostly  abstrac- 
tions."2 He  could  detect  the  "taunt  and  reproach"  to 
the  South  in  the  Wilmot  proviso,  but  could  not  discover 
that  a  rigorous  fugitive  slave  act  was  equally  a  taunt  and 
reproach  to  the  North. 


1  See  Fugitive  Slave  bill  introduced  by  Webster,  June  3d,  1850,  Works, 
vol.  v.  p.  373.     See  his  letter  of  Nov.  llth,  1850,  where  he  states  that  if  he 
had  been  in  the  Senate  when  the  present  Fugitive  Slave,  law  passed,  he 
"  should  have  moved,  as  a  substitute  for  it,  the  bill  proposed  by  myself." 
Private  Correspondence,  vol.  ii.  p.  402. 

2  Remarks  in  Boston,  April  29th,  Curtis,  vol.  ii.  p.  438.     These  expres- 
sions are  cited  from  the  celebrated  Revere  House  speech,  which  may  be 
found  in  full  in  Life  of  B.  R.  Curtis,  vol.  i.  p.  117.     The  argument  as  to 
the  duty  of  Massachusetts  is  strong. 


154  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1850 

Other  points  in  this  discourse  occasioned  much  comment 
at  the  time,  but  the  principal  ones,  and  all  that  are  necessary 
to  a  comprehension  of  what  will  follow,  have  been  touched 
upon.  It  now  remains  to  relate  how  the  country  received 
this  speech. 

The  Massachusetts  Legislature  was  in  session  discussing 
the  national  question,  but  dropped  the  subject  in  its  general 
aspect  to  consider  their  great  senator's  relation  to  it.  One 
member  said  that  Webster  was  "  a  recreant  son  of  Massa- 
chusetts who  misrepresented  her  in  the  Senate."  Henry 
Wilson  "  declared  that  Webster  in  his  speech  had  simply, 
but  hardly,  stated  the  Northern  and  national  side  of  the 
question,  while  he  had  earnestly  advocated  the  Southern 
and  sectional  side ;  that  his  speech  was  Southern  altogether 
in  its  tone,  argument,  aim  and  end." l  The  anti-slavery 
Whigs  and  Free-soil  members  were  anxious  to  instruct  Web- 
ster formally  to  support  the  Wilmot  proviso  and  vote  against 
Mason's  Fugitive  Slave  bill ;  and  a  resolution  with  that 
purport  was  introduced  by  Wilson,  but  they  had  not  the 
strength  to  carry  it  through  the  legislature.  The  speech 
was  received  in  a  like  manner  by  the  majority  of  the  North- 
ern representatives  in  Congress.  No  one  of  the  New  Eng- 
land Whig  members  agreed  with  him.2  Horace  Mann  es- 
pecially was  bitter.  He  writes :  "  Webster  is  a  fallen  star ! 
Lucifer  descending  from  heaven !"  "  There  is  a  very  strong 
feeling  here  [at  Washington]  that  Mr.  Webster  has  played 
false  to  the  North."  "  He  has  not  a  favorable  response 
from  any  Northern  man  of  any  influence." 3  Giddings  rep- 
resented the  anti-slavery  sentiment  of  Ohio  when  he  says, 
"  By  this  speech  a  blow  was  struck  at  freedom  and  the 
constitutional  rights  of  the  free  States  which  no  Southern 
arm  could  have  given." 4 


1  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power,  vol.  ii.  p.  254. 
8  Curtis,  vol.  ii.  pp.  428,  447 ;  Boston  Atlas,  April  6th. 
8  Letters  of  March  8th,  10th,  14th,  Life,  pp.  293,  294. 
4  History  of  the  Rebellion,  p.  324. 


CH.  II]  WEBSTER'S  SEVENTH-OF-MARCH  SPEECH  155 

A  public  meeting  in  Faneuil  Hall  condemned  the  action 
of  Webster.  Theodore  Parker,  who  was  one  of  the  prin- 
cipal speakers,  said :  "  I  know  no  deed  in  American  history 
done  by  a  son  of  New  England  to  which  I  can  compare 
this  but  the  act  of  Benedict  Arnold.  .  .  .  The  only  reason- 
able way  in  which  we  can  estimate  this  speech  is  as  a  bid 
for  the  presidency."1  In  the  main,  the  Northern  Whig 
press  condemned  the  salient  points  of  the  speech.  The  'New 
York  Tribune  was  especially  outspoken,  and  doubted  whether 
Webster  would  carry  with  him  a  Northern  Whig  vote.2  A 
large  proportion  of  the  Whig  newspapers  of  New  England 3 
felt  obliged  to  dissent  from  the  opinion  of  him  whose  ar- 
guments they  had  heretofore  received  with  avidity  and 
spread  with  zeal.  It  was  regarded  as  an  indication  of  great 
weight  when  the  Boston  Atlas,  whose  editor  was  a  warm 
personal  friend  of  Webster,  combated  unreservedly  the  im- 
portant positions  of  the  Tth-of -March  speech  ;  and  although 
this  respectful  criticism  was  expressed  in  emphatic  terms, 
the  editor  spoke  more  in  sorrow  than  in  anger.4  Those 
of  the  Whig  journals  who,  after  the  flush  of  surprise,  came 
to  their  leader's  support  could  only  advocate  his  principles 
in  a  lukewarm  manner ;  and  it  was  evident  that  devotion 
to  Webster,  and  not  to  the  cause  he  had  made  his  own,  was 
the  spring  of  their  action.5  Nearly  all  the  religious  papers 
of  the  North  vented  their  disapproval.6  Whittier,  in  a  song 
of  plaintive  vehemence  called  "  Ichabod,"  mourned  for  the 
"fallen"  statesman  whose  faith  was  lost,  and  whose  honor 
was  dead. 

Curtis  and  Theodore  Parker,  who  agree  in  nothing  else, 
are  of  the  same  mind  about  public  sentiment.  "This 


1  Speech  of  March  25th. 
f  March  9th  and  llth. 

*  Nine-tenths  of  them,  according  to  the  Boston  Atlas. 

*  See  the  editorial  of  April  6th. 

'  Notably  the  Boston  Advertiser,  the  Boston  Traveller,  and  the  Spring, 
field  Republican.     See  for  the  last,  Life  of  Bowles,  vol.  i.  p.  78. 

*  See  a  list  of  them  in  the  Liberator  of  April  12th. 


156  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1854 

speech,"  writes  Curtis,  "  was  received  by  probably  a  great 
majority  of  Mr.  Webster's  constituents,  if  not  by  a  majority 
of  the  whole  North,  with  disfavor  and  disapprobation."1 
"  I  think,"  said  Parker,  "  not  a  hundred  prominent  men  in 
all  New  England  acceded  to  the  speech." 2 

This  was  the  instant  outburst  of  opinion ;  but  friends  for 
"Webster  and  his  cause  came  with  more  deliberate  reflections. 
Some  prominent  Democratic  journals  approved  from  the 
first  his  position,3  and  there  were  many  Whigs  in  New 
England,  and  especially  in  Boston,  who  were  sure  to  follow 
Webster  whithersoever  he  led.  The  majority,  indeed,  would 
have  preferred  that  he  had  spoken  differently,  but  their 
personal  devotion  induced  them  to  espouse  his  side.4  His 
moral  and  intellectual  influence  in  the  free  States  was  greater 
than  that  of  any  man  living,  for  the  people  had  confidence 
that  his  gigantic  intellect  would  discover  the  right,  and  that 
his  intellectual  honesty  would  impel  him  to  follow  it.  The 
country  has  listened  to  but  two  men  on  whose  words  they 
have  hung  with  greater  reverence  than  on  those  of  Web- 
ster. The  intellectual  force  and  moral  greatness  of  Wash- 
ington and  of  Lincoln  were  augmented  by  their  high  office 
and  the  gravity  of  the  existing  crises.  When  the  first  excite- 
ment had  subsided,  the  friends  of  Webster  bestirred  them- 
selves, and  soon  testimonials  poured  in,  approving  the  posi- 
tion which  he  had  taken.  The  most  significant  of  them 
was  the  one  from  eight  hundred  solid  men  of  Boston,  who 
thanked  him  for  "recalling  us  to  our  duties  under  the 
Constitution,"  and  for  his  "broad,  national,  and  patriotic 
views." 6  The  tone  of  many  of  the  Whig  papers  changed, 


i  Vol.  ii.  p.  410.  9  Sermon,  Oct.  31st,  1852. 

3  Notably  the  New  York  Herald  and  the  New  York  Journal  of  Com- 
merce. 

4  For  example,  George  Ashmun,  M.  C.  from  the  Springfield,  Mass.,  dis- 
trict.    Life  of  Samuel  Bowles,  vol.  i.  p.  41. 

5  Among  the  signers  were  George  Ticknor,  George  T.  Curtis,  Benjamin 
R.  Curtis,  Rufus  Choate,  Moses  Stuart,  "W.  H.  Prescott,  and  Jared  Sparka. 
The  communication  was  dated  March  25th. 


OH.  II.]  DANIEL  WEBSTER  157 

some  to  positive  support,  others  to  more  qualified  censure. 
The  whole  political  literature  of  the  time  is  full  of  the  dis- 
cussion of  this  speech  and  its  relation  to  the  compromise. 
It  is  frequently  said  that  a  speech  in  Congress  does  not  alter 
opinions.;  that  the  minds  of  men  are  determined  by  set  po- 
litical bias  or  sectional  considerations.  This  was  certainly 
not  the  case  in  1850.  Webster's  influence  was  of  the  great- 
est weight  in  the  passage  of  the  compromise  measures,  and 
he  is  as  closely  associated  with  them  as  is  their  author. 
Clay's  adroit  parliamentary  management  was  necessary  to 
carry  them  through  the  various  and  tedious  steps  of  legis- 
lation. But  it  was  Webster  who  raised  up  for  them  a  pow- 
erful and  much-needed  support  from  Northern  public  sen- 
timent. 

At  the  South  the  speech  was  cordially  received ;  the  larger 
portion  of  the  press  commended  it  with  undisguised  admira- 
tion.1 Calhoun  complimented  Webster  for  many  of  his  dec- 
larations. Senator  Foote,  of  Mississippi,  was  warm  in  his 
praise;  while  Jefferson  Davis  afterwards  said  that  it  con- 
tained so  little  for  the  South  that  he  "  never  could  see  why 
it  was  republished  in  the  Southern  States." 2 

We  must  now  consider  the  justice  of  the  altered  verdict 
on  the  character  of  Webster,  which  dates  from  the  Yth  of 
March.  I  have  already  spoken  of  him  at  length ;  but  his 
vigorous  personality  fills  such  a  vast  space  of  his  time  that 
in  dwelling  upon  his  attitude  towards  the  question  which 
distracted  the  country,  and  the  attitude  of  the  country 
towards  him,  we  are  studying  in  the  best  manner  the  his- 
tory of  the  period.  Tradition  has  even  been  unkinder  to 
him  than  history.  It  is  generally  believed  that  in  his  later 
years  he  was  daily  flustered  with  brandy,  and  that  he  trod 
the  path  of  the  gross  libertine.  The  truth  on  this  delicate 


1  See  many  extracts  from  Southern  papers  in  the  Liberator  of  April  5th, 
May  3d  and  10th ;  also  Webster's  reference  thereto  in  the  Senate,  March 
25th,  Curtis,  vol.  ii.  p.  420. 

a  Jan.  36th,  1860,  Congressional  Globe,  p.  599. 


158  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1850 

subject  has  already  been  stated.1  But  it  is  the  delight  of 
story-tellers  to  make  Webster  the  hero  of  exaggerated  or 
wholly  apocryphal  anecdotes  that  tickle  the  ears  of  listeners 
with  a  tale  of  his  rank  excess.  When  it  affects  great  men, 
the  "taint  of  vice  whose  strong  corruptions  inhabit  our  frail 
blood"  becomes  an  especially  toothsome  morsel  of  gossip 
for  those  who  gladly  believe  that  intellectual  greatness  is 
prone  to  the  indulgence  of  the  passions. 

It  was  a  common  opinion  that  Webster's  intense  desire 
for  the  presidency  caused  him  to  sacrifice  his  principles,  but 
those  who  are  most  vehement  in  their  charge  refute  them- 
selves. Giddings  says  that  Webster  thought  "  his  only  path- 
way to  the  presidential  chair  lay  through  the  regions  of 
slavery;"  but  on  the  next  page  the  anti-slavery  apostle 
writes  that  the  reaction  from  the  speech  "prostrated  in 
political  death  the  giant  who  seemed  to  have  directed  his 
deadly  aim  at  the  heart  of  liberty." 2  Horace  Mann  said  the 
speech  was  a  "  bid  for  the  presidency." s  This,  however,  was 
an  after-thought ;  for  on  the  8th  of  March  he  records  the 
opinion  that  Webster  "  will  lose  two  friends  at  the  North 
where  he  will  gain  one  at  the  South."4  Theodore  Parker 
said  that  Webster  "  was  a  bankrupt  politician  in  desperate 
political  circumstances,  gaming  for  the  presidency ;"  yet,  ac- 
cording to  the  same  authority,  the  speech  did  not  commend 
itself  to  "  a  hundred  prominent  men  in  all  New  England."6 
If  one  believes  that  Webster  surrendered  principle  for  the 
sake  of  winning  the  favor  of  the  South,  it  must  be  on  the 
ground  that  this  man  of  large  public  experience  did  not  un- 
derstand the  sentiment  of  the  North ;  or  that,  with  unex- 
ampled fatuity,  he  hoped  his  position  on  the  sectional  ques- 
tion would  gain  him  the  support  of  the  South  and  yet  not 


See  p.  143. 

History  of  the  Rebellion,  pp.  323,  324. 

This  was  written  April  6th,  Life,  p.  299. 

Ibid.,  p.  293. 

Discourse,  April  12th,  1852,  and  Sermon,  Oct.  31st,  1852. 


CH.  H.J  DANIEL  WEBSTER  15p 

lose  him  that  of  the  free  States.  The  charge  lies  m  a  mis 
conception  of  his  character.  While  his  desire  for  the  presi- 
dency was  ardent,  he  demanded  the  nomination  from  his 
party  as  a  right  rather  than  begged  it  as  a  favor.  In  truth, 
if  we  carefully  estimate  the  public  utterances  of  Webster  we 
shall  see  that  the  charge  of  flagrant  inconsistency  is  unjust. 
Of  all  the  criticisms  of  his  action  from  anti-slavery  men,  that 
of  Emerson  was  the  least  uncharitable  and  the  most  truth- 
ful. The  philosopher  could  appreciate  the  conservatism  of 
the  statesman,  and  could  understand  that  the  point  of  view 
of  the  one  might  be  widely  different  from  that  of  the  other.1 
If  we  contrast  simply  his  former  sentiments  on  slavery  with 
the  treatment  of  it  in  the  7th-of-March  speech,  the  impu- 
tation of  inconsistency  may,  indeed,  seem  reasonable.8  But 
that  is  only  to  look  on  one  side  of  the  question  ;  for  if  we  re- 
flect on  Webster's  veneration  for  the  Constitution  and  his 


1  "Mr.  Webster,  perhaps,  is  only  following  the  laws  of  his  blood  and 
constitution.  .  .  .  He  is  a  man  who  lives  by  his  memory;  a  man  of  the 
past,  not  a  man  of  faith  and  hope.     All  the  drops  of  his  blood  have  eyes 
that  look  downward,  and  his  finely  developed  understanding  only  works 
truly  and  with  all  its  force  when  it  stands  for  animal  good ;  that  is,  for 
property.     He  looks  at  the  Union  as  an  estate,  a  large  farm,  and  is  excel- 
lent in  the  completeness  of  his  defence  of  it  so  far.     What  he  finds  al- 
ready written  he  will  defend.     Lucky  that  so  much  had  got  well  written 
when  he  came,  for  he  has  no  faith  in  the  power  of  self-government.  .  .  . 
In  Massachusetts,  in  1776,  he  would,  beyond  all  question,  have  been  a  ref- 
ugee.    He  praises  Adams  and  Jefferson,  but  it  is  a  past  Adams  and  Jef- 
ferson.    A  present  Adams  or  Jefferson  he  would  denounce." — Memoir  of 
Emerson,  Cabot,  p.  581. 

2  Webster  himself  denied  that  there  was  any  inconsistency.     See  his 
statement  in  his  7th-of-March  speech,  and  his  remarks  in  the  Senate, 
March  25th,  in  reply  to  Hale»     The  following  he  wrote  to  inhabitants  of 
Maine  in  May :  "  Gentlemen, — One  of  the  exciting  questions  of  the  present 
moment  respects  the  necessity  of  excluding  slavery  by  law  from  the  terri- 
tories lately  acquired  from  Mexico.     If  I  believed  in  any  such  necessity, 
I  should,  of  course,  support  such  a  law.     I  could  not  do  otherwise  con- 
sistently with  opinions  very  many  times  expressed,  and  which  opinions  I 
have  no  inclination  to  change,  and  shall  not  change."    Curtis,  vol.  ii.  p. 
430. 


160  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1850 

sincere  love  for  the  Union,  as  shown  through  his  whole  ca- 
reer, it  is  easy  to  see  that  the  main-spring  of  his  action  was 
the  same  in  1850  as  it  was  twenty  years  before,  when  he 
made  the  reply  to  Hayne.  His  dislike  of  slavery  was  strong, 
but  his  love  for  the  Union  was  stronger,  and  the  more  pow- 
erful motive  outweighed  the  other ;  for  he  believed  that  the 
crusade  against  slavery  had  arrived  at  a  point  where  its  fur- 
ther prosecution  was  hurtful  to  the  Union.  As  has  been 
said  of  Burke,  "  he  changed  his  front,  but  he  never  changed 
his  ground."  *  The  mention  of  Burke  cannot  fail  to  suggest 
the  likeness  between  the  British  statesman  and  the  American 
in  their  last  important  position  in  public  life.  Burke,  too, 
turned  his  back  upon  his  old  friends  and  supporters.  He 
who  for  so  many  years  was  the  strength  of  the  Whigs  now 
became  the  idol  of  the  Tories.  So  complete  was  the  change 
that  one  historian,3  more  brilliant  than  solid  in  his  judg- 
ments, cannot  account  for  it  in  any  other  way  than  that  the 
reason  of  the  statesman  was  tottering.  Other  more  careful 
writers,3  who  better  comprehended  Burke,  sqe  plainly  that 
he  simply  followed  the  laws  of  his  blood  and  constitution. 
So  it  was  with  Webster.  He  was  as  conservative  as  Burke. 
Both  dreaded  fanatics.  The  Union  and  the  Constitution 
were  to  the  American  what  the  ancient  and  revered  institu- 
tions of  ages  and  nations  were  to  the  Englishman.  Both 
were  the  means  of  breaking  up  their  party — the  American 
Whig  party  beyond  hope  of  revival;  the  English  Whigs 
were  deprived  of  power  for  a  generation.  Party  passion 
has  so  affected  opinions  about  Burke  that  it  has  remained 
for  the  present  generation  of  Englishmen  to  measure  fairly 
the  worth  of  their  greatest  statesman.  Never  has  his  repu- 
tation shone  so  brightly  as  to-day,  and  not  until  now  has  his 
conservatism  been  appreciated  at  its  full  value.  It  is  quite 
certain  that  we  shall  not  be  less  generous  in  the  estimate  of 


1  Life  of  Burke,  Morley.  p.  245. 

8  Buckle. 

3  Bancroft,  Lecky,  and  Morley.     See  Morley,  pp.  1  and  3. 


CH.  II.]  WEBSTER  AND  BURKE  COMPARED  161 

our  great  conservative.  Until  the  closing  years  of  our  cen- 
tury, a  dispassionate  judgment  could  not  be  made  of  Web- 
ster ;  but  we  see  now  that,  in  the  war  of  the  secession,  his 
principles  were  mightier  than  those  of  Garrison.1  It  was 
not  "  No  Union  with  slave-holders,"  but  it  was  "  Liberty  and 
Union"  that  won.  Lincoln  called  the  joint  names  his  watch- 
word,11 and  it  was  not  the  liberty  or  abolitionist,  but  the  Union 
party  that  conducted  the  war. 

Burke  likewise  suffered  calumny  in  his  private  life.  He 
received  large  gifts  of  money  from  a  rich  and  noble  lord, 
even  as  Webster  had  contributions  from  the  merchants  of 
State  Street,  and  Burke  was  also  accused  of  getting  money 
in  discreditable  ways.3 

In  thinking  of  the  intellectual  greatness  of  Webster,  we 
are  reminded  of  an  American  whose  grasp  was  wide,  who 
stamped  his  print  upon  his  time,  and  yet  not  until  our  gen- 
eration has  historic  justice  been  done  to  his  memory.  When 
Webster  eulogized  Alexander  Hamilton  with  that  graphic 
and  familiar  comparison  that  has  now  become  an  estimate 
of  his  work  which  no  one  disputes,  it  was  considered  a  brave 
and  noble  act  to  speak  so  warmly  of  a  man  whom  few  cared 
to  honor.4 

1  Webster's  "  great  argument  was  behind  every  bayonet,  and  was  car- 
ried home  with  every  cannon-shot  in  the  war  which  saved  the  Union." — 
George  F.  Hoar,  at  Plymouth,  Aug.  1st,  1889.  "  The  great  rebellion  of  1861 
went  down  hardly  more  before  the  cannons  of  Grant  and  Farragut  than  the 
thunder  of  Webster's  reply  to  Hayne." — Gov.  J.  D.  Long,  Jan.  15th,  1882. 

9  History  of  Nicolay  and  Hay,  Century  Magazine,  vol.  xxxviii.  p.  41 3. 

3  It  was  said  that  at  the  time  Burke  changed  his  political  opinions  he 
was  "  overwhelmed  with  pecuniary  embarrassments  from  which  there 
seemed  no  outlet  in  opposition." — History  of  England,  Lecky,  vol.  v.  p. 
460.  But  Lecky  has  no  doubt  of  the  sincerity  of  Burke's  convictions. 

*  "  He  smote  the  rock  of  the  national  resources,  and  abundant  streams 
of  revenue  gushed  forth.  He  touched  the  dead  corpse  of  the  public  credit, 
and  it  sprang  upon  its  feet." — Webster's  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  200.  "  I  admire 
your  gallantry  (and  good  conduct,  too)  in  vindicating  and  eulogizing  the 
fame  and  character  of  Hamilton.  Few  men  at  this  day  are  magnanimous 
to  dare  it."— Letter  of  Joseph  Gales  to  Webster,  March  27th,  1831,  Curtia, 
vol.  i.  p.  399. 

L— 11 


162  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1850 

On  the  llth  of  March,  Seward  spoke.  Although  this  was 
his  first  term  in  the  Senate,  and  indeed  in  Congress,  for  he 
had  never  been  a  member  of  the  House,  he  was  by  no  means 
an  unknown  man.  Achieving  local  reputation  by  service  in 
the  legislature,  he  had  twice  held  the  office  of  governor. 
The  executive  of  New  York  had  always  been  a  prominent 
office,  owing  to  the  importance  of  the  State  and  the  power 
vested  in  it  by  the  Constitution;  but  it  was  unusually  so 
in  the  case  of  Governor  Seward,  for  he  had  to  do  with  affairs 
that  gave  him  fame  beyond  the  confines  of  his  own  State. 
Indeed,  so  inseparably  was  his  name  connected  with  this 
office  that  after  years  of  renowned  service  in  the  Senate  his 
title  still  remained  Governor  Seward.  He  was  a  good  law- 
yer, and  had  a  large  practice  in  the  United  States  courts. 
Fond  of  study,  having  an  especial  liking  for  history  and 
philosophy,  he  loved  the  classics,  and  he  read  many  of  the 
English  poets  with  delight ;  but  he  detested  mathematics. 
An  active  Whig,  always  supporting  the  candidate  of  his 
party,  he  leaned  decidedly  to  anti-slavery  views.  He  was  a 
friend  of  John  Quincy  Adams,  whom  he  regarded  with  re- 
spect and  veneration,  and  who  had  a  marked  influence  on 
his  turn  of  thought.  Adams,  who  brooded  constantly  dur- 
ing the  last  years  of  his  life  over  the  slavery  question,  said 
to  Seward  the  year  before  he  died,  "  I  shall  be  here  but  a 
little  while.  I  look  to  you  to  do  a  great  deal."  He  had 
been  elected  senator  by  a  large  majority  of  the  legislature, 
and  it  was  well  understood  at  home  and  abroad  that  he 
was  a  strenuous  opponent  of  the  extension  of  slavery.  His 
speech  at  Cleveland  in  1 848  had  produced  a  profound  sensa- 
tion. "  Slavery  can  be  limited  to  its  present  bounds,"  he 
had  said ;  "  it  can  be  ameliorated ;  it  can  and  must  be  abol- 
ished, and  you  and  I  can  and  must  do  it." ' 

Beginning  with  an  unanswerable  argument  in  favor  of 
the  admission  of  California,  he  mentions  the  demand  that 


1  See  Life  by  F.  W.  Seward,  vols.  i.  and  ii.,  and  Memoir  prefixed  to  voL 
i.  of  Works. 


CH.IL]  SEWARD'S  SPEECH  163 

there  shall  be  a  compromise  of  the  questions  which  have 
arisen  out  of  slavery  before  California  shall  be  allowed  to 
become  a  State ;  and  emphatically  declares :  "  I  am  opposed 
to  any  such  compromise,  in  any  and  all  the  forms  in  which 
it  has  been  proposed ;"  for  what  do  we  of  the  North  "  re- 
ceive in  this  compromise  ?  Freedom  in  California."  But  as 
"  an  independent,  a  paramount  question,"  California  "  ought 
to  come  in,  and  must  come  in,  at  all  events.  .  .  .  Under  the 
circumstances  of  her  conquest,  her  compact,  her  abandon- 
ment, her  justifiable  and  necessary  establishment  of  a  Con- 
stitution, and  the  inevitable  dismemberment  of  the  empire 
consequent  upon  her  rejection,  I  should  have  voted  for  her 
admission  even  if  she  had  come  as  a  slave  State." 

In  regard  to  the  fugitive  slave  question,  "  I  say  to  the 
slave  States,  you  are  entitled  to  no  more  stringent  laws; 
and  that  such  laws  would  be  useless.  The  cause  of  the  inef- 
ficiency of  the  present  statute  is  not  at  all  the  leniency  of  its 
provisions ;"  it  is  the  public  sentiment  at  the  North,  which 
will  not  support  the  enforcement  of  the  Fugitive  Slave 
act.  "  Has  any  government  ever  succeeded  in  changing  the 
moral  convictions  of  its  subjects  by  force?  But  these  con- 
victions imply  no  disloyalty.  We  reverence  the  Constitu- 
tion, although  we  perceive  this  defect,  just  as  we  acknowl- 
edge the  splendor  and  the  power  of  the  sun,  although  its 
surface  is  tarnished  with  here  and  there  an  opaque  spot. 
Your  Constitution  and  laws  convert  hospitality  to  the  refu- 
gee from  the  most  degrading  oppression  on  earth  into  a 
crime;  but  all  mankind  except  you  esteem  that  hospitality 
a  virtue.  ...  If  you  will  have  this  law  executed,  you  must 
alleviate,  not  increase,  its  rigors." 

When  Seward  came  to  the  territorial  question,  his  words 
created  a  sensation.  "  We  hold,"  he  said, "  no  arbitrary  au- 
thority over  anything,  whether  acquired  lawfully  or  seized 
by  usurpation.  The  Constitution  regulates  our  stewardship ; 
the  Constitution  devotes  the  domain  (i.  e.  the  territories  not 
formed  into  States)  to  union,  to  justice,  to  defence,  to  wel- 
fare, and  to  liberty.  But  there  is  a  higher  law  than  the  Con- 


164  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1850 

stitution*  which  regulates  our  authority  over  the  domain, 
and  devotes  it  to  the  same  noble  purposes.  The  territory 
is  a  part,  no  inconsiderable  part,  of  the  common  heritage 
of  mankind,  bestowed  upon  them  by  the  Creator  of  the  uni- 
verse. We  are  his  stewards,  and  must  so  discharge  our  trust 
as  to  secure  in  the  highest  attainable  degree  their  happi- 
ness." This  remark  about  " a  higher  IOAJO"  while  far  infe- 
rior in  rhetorical  force  to  Webster's  "  I  would  not  take  pains 
uselessly  to  reaffirm  an  ordinance  of  Nature,  nor  to  re-enact 
the  will  of  God,"  was  destined  to  have  transcendent  moral 
influence.  A  speech  which  can  be  condensed  into  an  apho- 
rism is  sure  to  shape  convictions.  These,  then,  are  the  two 
maxims  of  this  debate ;  the  application  of  them  shows  the 
essential  points  of  the  controversy. 

Seward  then  proceeds  at  some  length  to  rebut  Webster's 
argument  based  on  the  proposition  that  climate  and  soil 
would  prevent  the  introduction  of  slavery  into  New  Mex- 
ico. He  refers  "to  the  great  and  all-absorbing  argument 
that  the  Union  is  in  danger  of  being  dissolved,  and  that  it 
can  only  be  saved  by  compromise."  He  had  received  "  with 
no  inconsiderable  distrust "  the  warnings  that  had  been  ut- 
tered with  impassioned  solemnity  in  his  hearing  every  day 
for  nearly  three  months,  "because  they  are  uttered  under 
the  influence  of  a  controlling  interest  to  be  secured,  a  para- 
mount object  to  be  gained ;  and  that  is  an  equilibrium  of 
power  in  the  republic.  .  . .  The  question  of  dissolving  the 
Union  is  a  complex  question :  it  embraces  the  fearful  issue 
whether  the  Union  shall  stand,  and  slavery,  under  the 
steady,  peaceful  action  of  moral,  social,  and  political  causes, 
be  removed  by  gradual  voluntary  effort,  and  with  compen- 
sation; or  whether  the  Union  shall  be  dissolved  and  civil 
war  ensue,  bringing  on  violent  but  complete  and  immediate 
emancipation.  We  are  now  arrived  at  that  stage  of  our 
national  progress  when  that  crisis  can  be  foreseen,  when 
we  must  foresee  it. ...  I  feel  assured  that  slavery  must  give 


1  The  emphasis  is  mine. 


CH.  II]  SEWARD'S  SPEECH  165 

way ;  .  .  .  that  emancipation  is  inevitable,  and  is  near ;  that 
it  may  be  hastened  or  hindered ;  and  that  whether  it  shall 
be  peaceful  or  violent  depends  upon  the  question  whether 
it  be  hastened  or  hindered ;  that  all  measures  which  fortify 
slavery,  or  extend  it,  tend  to  the  consummation  of  violence ; 
all  that  check  its  extension  and  abate  its  strength  tend  to 
its  peaceful  extirpation.  But  I  will  adopt  none  but  lawful, 
constitutional,  and  peaceful  means  to  secure  even  that  end ; 
and  none  such  can  I  or  will  I  forego.  .  .  .  There  is  no  rea- 
sonable limit  to  which  I' am  not  willing  to  go  in  applying 
the  national  treasures  to  effect  the  peaceful,  voluntary  re- 
moval of  slavery  itself.  .  .  .  But  you  reply  that,  neverthe- 
less, you  must  have  guarantees ;  and  the  first  one  is  for  the 
surrender  of  fugitives  from  labor.  That  guarantee  you  can- 
not have . . ,  because  you  cannot  roll  back  the  tide  of  social 
progress.  You  must  be  content  with  what  you  have."  Nev- 
ertheless, "  there  will  be  no  disunion  and  no  secession."  Sen- 
ator Seward  closed  with  an  appeal  for  the  maintenance  of 
the  Union ;  he  pictured  the  invocation  of  countless  genera- 
tions that  would  be  the  future  inhabitants  of  this  region, 
demanding  sure  and  complete  freedom  over  the  territory 
for  which  they  were  now  legislating.1 

In  a  portion  of  the  discourse  there  are  many  glittering 
generalities,  and  pedantic  references  to  Bacon,  Montesquieu, 
and  Burke,  which  add  little  to  the  power  of  the  reasoning. 
Nor  are  the  transitions  naturally  made.  In  classic  style, 
it  is  far  inferior  to  Webster's  oration ;  in  terse  and  severe 
precision  of  language  he  does  not  equal  Calhoun,  and  he 
fails  to  stick  to  the  question  in  hand  as  closely  as  Clay. 
The  first  part  of  the  speech,  the  argument  in  favor  of  the 
admission  of  California,  is  divided  into  categorical  propo- 
sitions, which  again  are  subdivided  into  points  after  the 
manner  of  an  old-fashioned  sermon.  This  is  not  a  pleasing 
form  for  an  oration  calculated  to  gain  the  attention  of  the 


1  This  speech  of  Senator  Seward  may  be  found  in  vol.  i.  of  his  Works, 
p.  51. 


166  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [185C 

hearers.  A  prominent  journalist,  whose  sympathies  were 
with  the  side  that  Seward  advocated,  thought  the  speech 
"  very  dull,  heavy,  and  prosy,"  and  he  did  not  stay  it  out,1 
for  more  than  three  hours  were  occupied  in  its  delivery.  It 
was  too  long  by  a  third.  But  the  last  two- thirds  make  it  a 
great  speech,  and  it  is  from  that  portion  that  nearly  all  the 
foregoing  citations  are  made.  Seward  was  listened  to  with 
close  and  earnest  attention  by  Webster,  Clay,  Calhoun,  Ben- 
ton,  Cass,  Hale,  and  Corwin,3  not  from  personal  sympathy 
with  him  in  his  maiden  effort,  but  because  he  represented 
faithfully  the  sentiment  of  the  Empire  State,  and  was,  more- 
over, regarded  as  the  mouthpiece  of  the  President.  The 
latter  supposition  was  a  mistake.  Nor  did  Seward  propose 
at  any  time  to  speak  for  General  Taylor  in  the  Senate ;  on 
the  contrary,  he  had  refused  a  place  on  any  important  com- 
mittee, lest  their  intimate  personal  relations  might  create 
the  suspicion  that  he  acted  authoritatively  for  the  Presi- 
dent.8 Indeed,  the  Washington  organ  of  the  President  as- 
sailed Seward  for  the  sentiments  expressed,  and  it  was  ac- 
cordingly given  out  that  he  had  lost  all  influence  with  the 
administration.  Webster  sneered  at  the  speech.4  Clay  wrote 
that  the  speech  had  eradicated  the  respect  of  almost  all  men 
for  Seward.5  But  one  voice  came  from  the  South,  and  that 
was  the  voice  of  censure ;  in  this  the  Northern  Democratic 


1  Brewer,  of  the  Boston  Atlas. 

2  Washington  correspondence  New  York  Tribune,  March  llth. 

8  Memoir  prefixed  to  vol.  i.  of  Works,  p.  Ixxxiv.  Seward  had,  however, 
consulted  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior.  On  the  day  that  he  spoke,  before 
going  to  the  Capitol,  he  wrote  his  wife :  "  I  showed  my  notes  confiden- 
tially to  Mr.  Ewing,  and  he  is  satisfied." — Life  of  Seward,  vol.  ii.  p.  125. 

4  "  I  perceive  that  my  friend  Weed  laments  that  it  did  not  happen  to 
me  to  make  such  a  great  and  glorious  speech  as  Governor  Seward's.     I 
thank  him  sincerely  for  his  condolence,  but  Omnia  non  possumus  omnes." 
Webster  to  Blatchford,  July,  1850,  Memoir  of  Thurlow  Weed,  p.  183. 
But  Weed  did  not  entirely  approve  of  the  speech.     See  letters  of  Sewaxd 
to  him,  Life  of  Seward,  vol.  ii.  p.  129. 

5  Private  Correspondence,  p.  604. 


CH.  II.]  SEWARD'S  SPEECH  16? 

press  for  the  most  part  coincided.  The  New  York  Tribune, 
however,  said  that  the  speech  represented  the  feeling  of  the 
great  State  of  New  York ;  and  this  was  true  of  the  majori- 
ty of  the  Whigs,  for  later  in  the  year,  in  State  convention 
assembled,  they  commended  by  formal  resolution  the  course 
of  their  senator.1 

Seward's  reasoning  on  the  fugitive  slave  question  was  in- 
capable of  refutation ;  later  events  plainly  demonstrated  the 
force  of  his  position.  His  unerring  foresight  as  to  what 
would  happen  to  slavery  in  case  the  Union  were  dissolved  is 
an  unfolding  of  the  idea  planted  in  his  mind  by  his  political 
exemplar,  John  Quincy  Adams.2  But  his  confident  assertion 
that  "  there  will  be  no  disunion  and  no  secession  "  is  a  reve- 
lation of  that  serene  optimism  that  was  a  characteristic  of 
Seward  throughout  his  whole  career.  The  burning  assertion 
that "  there  is  a  higher  law  than  the  Constitution  "  would  in 
ordinary  times  have  simply  been  the  averment  of  a  noble 
abstraction  as  old  as  Koman  law,  and,  although  it  was  ap- 
plied to  the  territorial  question  by  the  senator,  the  relig- 
ious and  philanthropic  people  of  the  country  soon  seized 
upon  it  as  justifying  resistance  to  the  Fugitive  Slave  law. 
The  remark  undoubtedly  received  a  far  wider  application 
than  its  author  purposed.  Of  all  the  anti- slavery  parti- 
sans in  Congress,  Seward  was  perhaps  the  last  man  one 
would  have  suspected  of  soaring  to  such  a  moral  height  and 
laying  down  a  principle  that  should  warrant  opposition  to 
the  law.  At  any  rate,  the  expression  would  have  seemed 
more  natural  in  the  mouth  of  Chase  or  Hale,  in  that  of  Gid- 
dings  or  Horace  Mann.  For  Seward  did  not  disdain  the  arts 
of  the  machine  politician.  He  believed  that  a  shrewd  dis- 
tribution of  the  patronage  was  a  great  assistance  even  to  a 
party  of  moral  ideas.  His  influence  with  the  administration 
was  great  enough  to  control  the  dealing-out  of  the  offices 
of  the  North,  and  he  made  an  efficient  member  of  the 


1  New  York  Tribune,  March  12th  and  Oct.  3d. 

3  See  especially  Life  of  Seward,  F.  W.  Seward,  vol.  i.  p.  672. 


168  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1850 

New  York  Whig  regency  whose  sphere  was  practical  poli- 
tics. That  the  higher-law  doctrine  should  be  carried  to  its 
legitimate  result  was  far  from  his  desire ;  but  we  shall  see 
how  this  maxim  became  a  distinction  of  the  radicals,  who 
accordingly  looked  to  Seward  as  their  leader. 

These  four  speeches  are  but  a  fraction  of  the  congressional 
utterances  on  the  question  superseding  all  others ;  but  they 
present  the  case  in  its  different  aspects  forcibly  and  plainly. 
The  four  bulky  volumes  of  the  Congressional  Globe  contain- 
ing the  records  of  the  session  are  for  the  most  part  a  report 
of  speeches  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  and  an  account  of  the 
various  parliamentary  procedures  which  took  place  before 
arriving  at  the  settlement.  We  have  heard  from  four  men 
— a  Southern  Whig  and  a  Northern  Whig  in  favor  of  the 
compromise,  a  Southern  Democrat  and  an  anti-slavery  Whig 
opposed  to  it.  The  Southerners,  however,  who  afterwards 
were  proud  to  own  themselves  Calhoun's  disciples,  had  no 
idea  of  resting  their  case  on  his  demand  for  a  constitutional 
amendment  that  should  maintain  an  equilibrium.  Jeffer- 
son Davis,  who  aspired  to  succeed  Calhoun  as  a  leader,  gave 
an  exposition  of  what  they  actually  desired.  Out  of  respect 
for  Calhoun,  he  admitted  that  the  amendment  might  event- 
ually become  necessary ;  but,  in  common  with  nearly  every 
one  of  his  fellow-extremists,  he  knew  that  it  was  a  chimer- 
ical idea  and  an  impossible  demand.  It  was  a  good  enough 
argument  to  keep  in  the  background ;  it  had  a  possibility 
of  future  value,  for  it  might  serve  as  one  of  the  pre- 
texts for  secession.  But  now  it  must  make  place  for  a  tan- 
gible claim,  and  one  that  the  average  Southern  mind  could 
comprehend.  Davis  was  quite  ready  to  state  what  would 
satisfy  the  South.  What  he  preferred,  before  all,  was  non- 
intervention— "  that  is,  an  equal  right  to  go  into  all  territo- 
ries— all  property  being  alike  protected ;"  but,  in  default  of 
this,  "  I  will  agree  to  the  drawing  of  the  line  of  36°  30' 
through  the  territories  acquired  from  Mexico,  with  the  con- 
dition that  in  the  same  degree  as  slavery  is  prohibited  north 
of  that  line,  it  shall  be  permitted  to  enter  south  of  the  line ; 


CH.IL]  BENTON  AND  FOOTE  l«y 

and  that  the  States  which  may  be  admitted  into  the  Union 
shall  come  in  under  such  constitutions  as  they  think  proper 
to  form." *  This  was  his.  ultimatum.  The  speeches  of  Clay, 
Calhoun,  Webster,  Seward,  and  the  demand  of  Davis,  being 
a  corollary  to  the  complaint  of  Calhoun,  show  the  three 
sides  of  the  controversy.  The  other  speeches  are  restate- 
ments or  amplifications  of  the  cogent  arguments  used  by 
these  leaders  of  the  debate. 

The  discussion  went  on,  not  unattended  with  excitement. 
Between  Benton  and  Senator  Foote  a  noticeable  altercation 
took  place ;  for  some  time  there  had  been  a  bitter  personal 
feeling  between  the  two  men.3  The  Southerners  looked  on 
Benton  as  a  renegade,  for,  although  a  slave-holder  from  a 
slave-holding  State,  he  was  bitterly  opposed  to  their  object, 
and  the  senator  from  Mississippi  was  tacitly  selected  to 
taunt  Benton  whenever  opportunity  offered.3  In  the  latter 
part  of  March  he  had  a  spirited  controversy  with  Foote  as 
to  what  measure  should  have  legislative  preference.  The 
senator  from  Mississippi  moved  that  the  territorial  bills 
should  be  made  a  special  order.  Benton  objected  to  this, 
demanding,  with  considerable  asperity,  that  the  admission 
of  California  should  first  have  consideration.  This  nettled 
Foote,  who  was  of  an  excitable  temperament,  and  he  replied 
in  words  of  bitter  sarcasm.  "  The  senator,"  he  said, "  need 
not  think  of  frightening  anybody  by  a  blustering  and  dog- 
matic demeanor.  We  have  rights  here,  as  well  as  the  sen- 
ator from  Missouri,  and  we  mean  to  maintain  them  at  all 
hazards  and  to  the  last  extremity.  .  .  .  The  honorable  sen- 
ator now.  says,  '  I  am  the  friend  of  California.  ...  I  an- 
nounce— I,  sir — I  announce — that  I  will  from  this  day  hence- 
forward insist — I,  the  Caesar,  the  Napoleon  of  the  Senate — 
I  announce  that  I  have  now  come  into  the  war  with  sword 


1  Remarks  of  Jefferson  Davis  in  the  Senate,  March  13th  and  14th. 
'  Casket  of  Reminiscences,  H.  S.  Foote,  p.  331. 

•  I  am  indebted  to  James  W.  Bradbury,  then  a  senator  from  Maine,  for 
the  statement  in  the  last  clause. 


170  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1850 

and  buckler.' "  Foote  continued  in  an  exasperating  manner, 
ridiculed  the  notion  of  Benton  posing  as  "  the  special  friend 
of  California,"  and  insinuated  that  his  zeal  for  the  State  was 
not  from  "  high  public  reasons,"  but  from  "  certain  personal 
and  domestic  considerations." r  Benton  retorted  that  he  be- 
lieved personalities  were  forbidden  by  the  laws  of  the  Sen- 
ate. "  And  now,  sir,"  he  said,  "  I  will  tell  you  what  I  know. 
I  know  that  the  attacks  made  upon  my  motives  to-day,  and 
heretofore  in  this  chamber,  are  false  and  cowardly."  The 
rejoinder  of  Foote  was  not  less  cutting  than  his  former  re- 
marks. It  greatly  irritated  Benton,  who  exclaimed, "  I  pro- 
nounce it  cowardly  to  give  insults  where  they  cannot  be 
chastised.  Can  I  take  a  cudgel  to  him  here  ?"  Calls  to  or- 
der by  the  vice-president  and  several  senators,  with  mollify- 
ing remarks  by  others,  terminated  the  incident  for  the  day.3 
On  the  morrow,  Benton,  in  a  personal  explanation,  declared 
his  determination,  if  the  Senate  did  not  protect  him  from 
insult,  thereafter  to  redress  the  wrong  himself,  cost  what  it 
might.  For  some  time  afterwards  the  rancor  between  the 
two  gentlemen  did  not  have  a  public  manifestation.  But  on 
the  17th  of  April,  when  Foote  was  pressing  his  motion  for 
the  reference  of  Clay's  resolutions  and  other  cognate  mat- 
ter to  a  select  committee  of  thirteen,  the  pent-up  enmity 
broke  forth.  Benton  made  the  charge  that  the  whole  ex- 
citement under  which  the  country  had  labored  was  due  to 
the  address  of  the  Southern  members  of  Congress,3  and  that 
"  there  has  been  a  cry  of  wolf  when  there  was  ,no  wolf ;  that 
the  country  has  been  alarmed  without  reason  #nd  against 
reason."  Foote,  in  reply,  defended  the  signers  of  the  South- 
ern address,  said  their  action  was  "  worthy  of  the  highest 
laudation,"  and  that  they  would  be  held  in  "  veneration  when 
their  calumniators,  no  matter  who  they  may  be,  will  be  ob- 
jects of  general  loathing  and  contempt."  When  the  word 


1  Fremont,  one  of  the  senators-elect  from  California,  was  the  son-in-law 
of  Benton. 
»  This  was  March  26th.  *  See  p.  104. 


CH.  IL]  THE   COMMITTEE   OF   THIRTEEN  171 

"calumniators"  was  uttered,  Benton  rose  from  his  seat, 
pushed  his  chair  violently  from  him,  and,  without  remark  or 
gesture,  but  with  great  wrath  in  his  face,  quickly  strode  tow- 
ards the  seat  of  Foote,  which  was  about  twenty  feet  distant 
from  his  own.  Benton  had  no  weapon  of  any  kind  in  his 
hands  or  about  his  person.  Foote,  seeing  at  once  the  move- 
ment of  Benton,  left  his  place  on  the  floor  and  ran  towards 
the  secretary's  table,  all  the  while  looking  over  his  shoulder ; 
at  the  same  time  he  drew  a  five-chambered  revolver,  fully 
loaded,  and  cocked  it ;  then  took  a  position  in  front  of  the 
secretary's  table.  Meanwhile  Senator  Dodge  followed  Ben- 
ton,  overtook  him  and  grasped  him  by  the  arm,  when  he 
said,  "  Don't  stop  me,  Dodge !"  to  which  the  reply  came, 
"  Don't  compromise  yourself  or  the  Senate."  He  was  then 
on  the  point  of  going  back  to  his  seat  when  he  happened  to 
see  the  pistol  in  Foote' s  hands,  at  which  he  became  greatly 
excited.  He  struggled  with  the  senators  who  were  hold- 
ing him,  with  the  apparent  intention  of  approaching  Foote, 
and,  dramatically  throwing  open  his  coat,  exclaimed, "  I  am 
not  armed ;  I  have  no  pistols ;  I  disdain  to  carry  arms.  Let 
him  fire.  Stand  out  of  the  way  and  let  the  assassin  fire." 
In  the  meantime,  Foote  was  disarmed  and  Benton  was  led 
back  to  his  seat.  Senators  considered  the  scene  an  outrage 
to  the  dignity  of  the  Senate,  and  a  committee  was  appoint- 
ed to  investigate  the  affair  and  take  proper  action.  Three 
months  and  a  half  later  they  reported,  reciting  fully  the  facts, 
but  forbore  to  recommend  any  action  to  the  Senate.  They 
made  one  statement  of  historical  interest ;  namely,  that  they 
had  "  searched  the  precedents,  and  find  that  no  similar  scene 
has  ever  been  witnessed  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States." ' 
On  the  18th  of  April  the  resolutions  of  Clay  and  others 
of  similar  purport  were  referred  to  a  select  committee  of 
thirteen.  Clay  was  chosen  its  chairman,  and  it  was  further 
made  up  by  the  election  of  senators  Webster,  Phelps,  Cooper, 
Whigs,  and  Cass,  Dickinson,  Bright,  Democrats,  from  the 


1  Report  of  Committee,  July  30th. 


172  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1850 

free  States ;  King,  Mason,  Dotvns,  Democrats,  and  Mangum, 
Bell,  and  Berrien,  Whigs,  from  the  slave  States.  Nothing 
demonstrated  more  clearly  that  the  question  was  not  a  par- 
tisan one  than  the  constitution  of  this  committee.  There 
were  thirty-four  Democrats  and  twenty-four  Whigs  in  the 
Senate,  yet  the  Whigs  were  given  a  majority  of  this  com- 
mittee. The  division  was  not  on  party,  but  on  sectional 
lines.  It  had  been  tacitly  understood  that  there  should  be 
six  members  from  the  free  and  six  from,  the  slave  States,  and 
it  was  eminently  proper  that  the  thirteenth  man  should  be 
the  Nestor  of  the  Senate,  as  Clay  was  called.  The  senators 
chosen  were  able,  experienced,  and  moderate  men ;  among 
them  there  was  only  one  advocate  of  the  Wilmot  proviso, 
Phelps,  of  Vermont,  and  but  one  Southern  extremist,  Ma- 
son, of  Virginia.  The  committee  reported  on  the  8th  of 
May ;  their  recommendations  and  views  were  thus  recapitu- 
lated : 

1.  The  admission  of  any  new  State  or  States  formed  out 
of  Texas  to  be  postponed  until  they  shall  hereafter  present 
themselves  to  be  received  into  the  Union,  when  it  will  be  the 
duty  of  Congress  fairly  and  faithfully  to  execute  the  com- 
pact with  Texas  by  admitting  such  new  State  or  States. 

2.  The  admission  forthwith  of  California  into  the  Union, 
with  the  boundaries  she  had  proposed. 

3.  The  establishment  of  territorial  governments,  without 
the  Wilmot  proviso,  for  New  Mexico  and  Utah ;  embracing 
all  the  territory  recently  acquired  by  the  United  States  from 
Mexico  not  contained  in  the  boundaries  of  California. 

4.  The  combination  of  these  two  last-mentioned  measures 
in  the  same  bill. 

5.  The  establishment  of  the  western  and  northern  bound- 
ary of  Texas,  and  the  exclusion  from  her  jurisdiction  of  all 
New  Mexico,  with  the  grant  to  Texas  of  a  pecuniary  equiva- 
lent ;  and  the  section  for  that  purpose  to  be  incorporated 
in  the  bill  admitting  California  and  establishing  territorial 
governments  for  Utah  and  New  Mexico. 

6.  More  effectual  enactment  of  law  to  secure  the  prompt 


CH.II.]  THE  COMMITTEE  OF   THIRTEEN  173 

delivery  of  persons  bound  to  service  or  labor  in  one  State, 
under  the  laws  thereof,  who  escape  into  another  State. 

Y.  In  the  District  of  Columbia  the  slave-trade,  but  not 
slavery,  was  to  be  prohibited  under  a  heavy  penalty. 

No  minority  report  was  made ;  but  Phelps,  Cooper,  Mason, 
Downs,  and  Berrien  dissented  from  some  of  the  views  of  the 
majority,  and  made  statements  to  that  effect  in  open  Senate. 
The  committee,  however,  were  unanimously  agreed  on  the 
first  proposition,  relating  to  the  formation  of  more  States 
from  Texas.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  practical  bearing  of 
these  recommendations  was  the  same  as  that  of  Clay's  reso- 
lutions introduced  in  January ; l  bills  to  carry  them  out  had 
been  prepared,  and  were  offered  in  connection  with  the  re- 
port. The  discussion  on  these  measures  in  various  shapes 
continued  for  nearly  five  months,  and  nearly  every  senator 
spoke.  Among  the  supporters  of  the  compromise  scheme 
in  the  Senate  were  Clay,  Webster,  Cass,  Douglas,  and  Foote. 
It  was  opposed  by  Seward,  Chase,  Hale,  John  Davis,  of  Mas- 
sachusetts, and  Dayton — all  of  them  anti-slavery  Whigs  or 
Free-soilers ;  by  Benton,  an  independent  Democrat ;  and  by 
Jefferson  Davis  and  a  following  of  Southern  extremists.9 
Every  one  was  astonished  at  the  fire  and  vigor  of  Clay.  He 
was  the  especial  champion  of  the  plan,  and  right  nobly  did 
he  advocate  it  in  spite  of  his  age  and  infirmity.  Greeley,  a 
looker-on  at  Washington,  was  amazed  at  his  energy,  and 
wrote  the  Tribune :  "  He  is  ...  an  overmatch  in  the  engi- 
neering of  a  bill  by  sharp  corners  and  devious  passages  for 
any  man  in  the  Senate.  Webster  is  more  massive  and  pon- 
derous in  a  set  debate,  but  does  not  compare  in  winning 
support  to  a  measure."3 

Meanwhile,  the  Nashville  convention  met.    From  the  first 


1  See  p.  122. 

*  "  All  the  Union  men,  North  and  South,  Whigs  and  Democrats,  for 
the  period  of  six  months  were  assembled  in  caucus  every  day,  with  Clay 
in  the  chair,  Cass  upon  his  right  hand,  Webster  upon  his  left  hand,  and 
the  Whigs  and  Democrats  arranged  on  either  side." — Douglas,  speech  at 
Cincinnati,  Sept.  9th,  1859.  »  Letter  of  June  9th. 


174  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1850 

the  Whigs  in  the  South  were  either  opposed  to  it,  or  were 
silent  on  the  subject.  The  supporters  of  the  project  were 
mainly  Democrats ;  but  in  many  of  the  States,  after  the  in- 
troduction of  the  compromise  resolutions,  they  joined  in  the 
opposition.  It  was  patent,  however,  from  Webster's  allusion 
to  it  in  his  7th-of-March  speech,  that  the  proposed  con- 
vention attracted  attention  at  Washington  as  a  disunion 
move.  He  intimated  that  if  any  persons  should  meet  at 
Nashville  "  for  the  purpose  of  concerting  measures  for  the 
overthrow  of  this  Union  over  the  bones  of  Andrew  Jack- 
son," the  old  hero  "  would  turn  in  his  coffin."  By  the  latter 
part  of  March  the  feeling  in  favor  of  the  convention  had 
largely  subsided,  as  shown  by  the  fact  that,  out  of  sixty 
newspapers  published  in  ten  slave-holding  States,  from  Ma- 
ryland to  Louisiana,  there  were  not  more  than  fifteen  that 
gave  it  a  decided  support.1  In  fact,  there  was  little  enthu- 
siasm for  it  outside  of  South  Carolina  and  Mississippi.  The 
convention  met  on  the  3d  of  June ;  nine  States  were  rep- 
resented. There  were  six  delegates  from  Virginia,  seven- 
teen from  South  Carolina,  twelve  from  Georgia,  twenty-one 
from  Alabama,  eleven  from  Mississippi,  one  from  Texas,  two 
from  Arkansas,  six  from  Florida,  and  a  large  number  from 
Tennessee ; a  but  the  credentials  of  the  delegates  from  most 
of  the  States  were  not  of  a  character  to  give  great  weight  to 
the  proceedings  of  the  convention.  The  important  proposi- 
tion in  its  address  was  the  demand  for  a  division  of  the  ter- 
ritory acquired  from  Mexico  by  the  parallel  of  36°  30',  with 
a  right  to  carry  slaves  below  that  line.  This  was  called  uan 
extreme  concession  on  the  part  of  the  South ;"  and  if  the 
convention  represented  the  Southern  people,  it  was  virtually 
their  ultimatum.  But  this  assemblage  was  not  a  wave,  but 
only  a  ripple,  of  Southern  sentiment.  It  deserves  a  men- 
tion here  more  from  the  hopes  and  fears  it  had  excited  than 
from  its  active  or  enduring  effects. 


1  Wilmington,  N.  C.,  Chronicle.    Cited  in  Boston  Advertiser,  March  23d. 
9  National  Intelligencer,  June  8th. 


CH.II.]  ILLNESS  OF  PRESIDENT  TAYLOR  175 

The  influence  of  the  administration  was  exerted  against 
the  plan  of  the  committee  of  thirteen.  The  second,  third, 
and  fifth  recommendations '  were  combined  in  one  measure, 
which  the  President  himself  in  derision  had  called  the  omni- 
bus bill,2  and  to  oppose  which  he  warmly  encouraged  Han- 
nibal Hamlin,  Senator  from  Maine.3  A  few  days  after  the 
report  of  the  committee,  Clay,  in  a  speech,  held  out  the  olive 
branch  to  the  administration.  It  was  not  accepted ;  on  the 
contrary,  "  war,  open  war,  undisguised  war,  was  made  by  the 
administration  and  its  partisans  against  the  plan  of  the  com- 
mittee." *  This  the  senator  thought  was  unfair.  What  he 
deemed  he  had  a  right  to  expect  was  well  stated  in  his  witty 
retort  to  John  Bell,  a  Whig  senator  from  Tennessee,  who 
defended  the  President.  Bell  said:  "The  President  an- 
nounced that  he  still  adhered  to  the  plan  he  had  proposed ; 
and  the  old  question  is  presented  whether  Mahomet  will  go 
to  the  mountain,  or  the  mountain  come  to  Mahomet.  I  do 
not  undertake  to  say  which  is  Mahomet  or  which  the  moun- 
tain." The  reply  from  Clay  came  quickly :  "  I  beg  pardon, 
but  I  only  wanted  the  mountain  to  let  me  alone."  He  said, 
moreover,  that  with  the  concurrence,  or  even  the  forbear- 
ance, of  the  administration  the  measure  would  have  passed 
both  Houses  without  difficulty. 

These  remarks  of  Clay  were  made  on  the  3d  of  July,  and 
it  was  the  last  time  that  he  had  occasion  to  criticise  the 
course  of  the  President.  Personal  and  sectional  passion 
were  stilled  by  the  entrance  of  grim  death  into  the  White 
House.  General  Taylor  on  Thursday  morning,  the  Fourth 
of  July,  was  apparently  in  robust  health.  He  attended  the 
exercises  in  commemoration  of  the  day  at  the  Washington 
Monument,  and  listened  to  the  oration  of  Senator  Foote. 
The  heat  was  of  unusual  intensity ;  he  was  for  a  long  time 


1  See  p.  172. 

9  Statement  of  Clay  in  the  Senate,  July  3d. 

•  Life  of  Clay,  Schurz,  vol.  ii.  p.  351 ;  Life  of  Thurlow  Weed,  vol.  ii.  p, 
178.  •  Remarks  of  Clay,  July  3d. 


176  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1881 

exposed  to  the  sun,  and  to  quench  his  raging  thirst  drank  a 
large  quantity  of  ice -water.  Keturning  to  the  house,  he 
ate  freely  of  cherries  and  wild  fruits,  and  took  copious 
draughts  of  iced  milk.  An  hour  after  dinner  he  was  seized 
with  cramps,  which  took  the  form  of  violent  cholera  morbus. 
The  usual  remedies  were  applied,  but  the  illness  increased, 
until  by  midnight  serious  results  were  threatened.  The  pa- 
tient continued  in  this  condition  until  Saturday,  the  6th, 
when  it  was  deemed  best  to  call  in  counsel ;  two  other  phy- 
sicians were  sent  for,  and  Dr.  Wood,  his  son-in-law,  was  sum- 
moned from  Baltimore.  By  Monday  the  skill  of  his  doctors 
had  checked  the  visible  stages  of  cholera  morbus,  but  typhoid 
fever  set  in,  and  there  were  signs  of  mental  distress.  He 
said  to  his  medical  attendant :  "  I  should  not  be  surprised  if 
this  were  to  terminate  in  my  death.  I  did  not  expect  to  en- 
counter what  has  beset  me  since  my  elevation  to  the  presi- 
dency. God  knows  that  I  have  endeavored  to  fulfil  what  I 
conceived  to  be  my  honest  duty.  But  I  have  been  mistaken. 
My  motives  have  been  misconstrued,  and  my  feelings  most 
grossly  outraged."  He  was  undoubtedly  brooding  over  an 
interview  between  himself  and  Stephens  and  Toombs,  which 
occurred  on  the  second  day  of  his  illness.1  It  was  reported 
that  they  had  called  upon  him  as  representatives  of  a  cabal 
of  ultra  Southern  "Whigs  to  protest  against  his  course  on  the 
slavery  question,  and  it  was  said  that  they  warned  him,  un- 
less his  policy  were  changed,  they  would  vote  a  resolution 
of  censure  on  his  conduct  in  the  Galphin  business.3  This  day, 
Monday,  the  8th,  the  physicians  and  family  became  much 
alarmed ;  by  evening  hope  was  abandoned.  That  night  and 
the  next  morning  all  was  gloom  at  the  executive  mansion ; 
bulletins  were  issued  every  hour,  which  crowds  anxiously 
awaited  with  tearful  sympathy  for  the  illustrious  hero  in  his 
last  fight.  At  ten  o'clock  Tuesday  morning  a  rumor  was 
started  that  the  President  had  rallied ;  at  one  in  the  after- 


1  See  Life  of  John  A.  Quitman,  Claiborne,  vol.  ii.  p.  82. 

*  What  the  Galphin  business  was  will  be  later  on  explained. 


CH.H]  DEATH  OF  PRESIDENT  TAYLOR  177 

noon,  that  he  was  dead ;  but  the  official  bulletin  of  3.30  P.M. 
stated  that  the  crisis  had  been  passed,  and  he  was  beyond 
immediate  danger.  The  city  ran  wild  with  joy.  Bells  were 
rung  and  bonfires  were  built  to  show  the  relieved  anxiety  of 
the  people.  Crowds  of  officials  and  many  of  the  diplomatic 
body  repaired  to  the  White  House  to  offer  their  congratula- 
tions. But  the  exultation  was  short-lived.  By  seven  o'clock 
it  was  known  that  the  physicians  had  refused  to  give  more 
medicine,  saying  their  patient  was  in  the  hands  of  God ;  and 
the  bulletin  announced  that  the  President  was  dying.  In 
response  to  his  earnest  inquiry,  his  doctor  and  friend  told 
him  he  had  not  many  hours  to  live.  The  general  knew  it 
too  well,  but  he  met  death  like  a  hero.  He  prayed  with  his 
spiritual  adviser ;  he  bade  farewell  to  his  wife  and  children, 
who  were  overcome  with  grief;  and  he  uttered  his  last 
words  with  emphatic  distinctness :  "  I  have  always  done  my 
duty :  I  am  ready  to  die.  My  only  regret  is  for  the  friends 
I  leave  behind  me." 

There  was  deep  and  sincere  sorrow  through  all  the  North- 
ern States  at  the  death  of  the  President.  One  correspond- 
ent on  his  journey  from  Boston  to  Washington  saw  every- 
where signs  of  mourning;  he  had  never  known  anything 
like  the  depth  of  feeling  which  pervaded  the  masses.  "  It 
seemed,  indeed,"  he  wrote,  "as  if  our  journey  lay  through 
the  dark  valley  and  shadow  of  death." *  "  I  never  saw  grief," 
Seward  wrote,  "  public  grief,  so  universal  and  so  profound."3 
The  wide-felt  sorrow  was  a  testimony  to  the  sterling  hon- 
esty and  patriotism  of  General  Taylor.  It  extended  to  the 
border  States,  where  he  had  a  powerful  hold  on  the  Whigs, 
while  but  little  regret  for  his  death  was  shown  in  the  cotton 
States  outside  of  his  own  Louisiana.  The  grief  of  the  Free- 
soilers  and  anti-slavery  Whigs  was  especially  great,  for  they 
had  given  their  adherence  to  the  President's  plan,  and  they 
felt  that  now  its  strongest  prop  was  gone :  they  soon  had 


1  Correspondent  of  Boston  Atlas,  July  14th. 

3  Seward  to  his  wife,  Life  of  Seward,  vol.  ii.  p.  144. 


I.— 12 


178  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1850 

reason  to  feel  that  the  succession  of  Fillmore  boded  ill  to 
their  scheme.1 

Millard  Fillmore  was  a  self-educated,  self-made  man,  and 
a  safe  though  not  brilliant  lawyer.  He  early  entered  into 
politics,  became  a  sturdy  Whig,  and  served  several  terms  in 
the  House  of  Representatives,  where  he  was  marked  for  his 
industry,  his  anti  -  slavery  views,  and  his  support  of  John 
Quincy  Adams  in  the  fight  for  the  right  of  petition.  When 
he  took  the  oath  of  office  as  Vice-President,  the  difference 
between  him  and  Seward  was  apparently  not  one  of  prin- 
ciple, but  one  centring  on  the  disposition  of  the  offices. 
There  was  a  lack  of  harmony  between  the  two  divisions  of 
the  party,  beginning  soon  after  the  inauguration  of  General 
Taylor,  but  Seward  acquired  the  ascendant,  and  his  influence 
with  the  administration,  as  we  have  seen,  became  powerful.3 
Fillmore  was  distinguished  for  his  suavity  of  manners.  He 
had  presided  over  the  Senate  during  the  heated  debates  on 
the  compromise  measures  with  impartiality  and  dignity. 
His  idea  of  the  decorum  proper  for  the  presiding  officer  of 
the  Senate  was  so  high  that  he  had  confided  to  only  one 
person  his  own  view  of  the  question  which  agitated  Con- 
gress. The  debate  had  stirred  the  conservative  feelings  of 
his  nature,  and  he  had  told  the  President  privately  that  in 
case  there  should  be  a  tie  in  the  Senate,  and  it  should  de- 
volve upon  him  to  give  the  casting  vote,  his  decision  would 
be  in  favor  of  the  scheme  devised  by  Clay.  While  there  was 
uncertainty  about  the  policy  of  the  new  President,3  Webster 
felt  confident  that  it  would  promote  the  scheme  of  the  com- 
mittee of  thirteen.  He  writes :  "  I  believe  Mr.  Fillmore  fa- 
vors the  compromise,  and  there  is  no  doubt  that  recent 


1  This  account  of  the  illness  and  death  of  President  Taylor  is  made  up 
from  detailed  reports  at  the  time  to  the  Philadelphia  Bulletin  and  New 
York  Independent ;  from  references  to  the  illness  in  Congress ;  from  allu- 
sions to  his  death  by  President  Fillmore,  and  in  the  eulogies  delivered  in 
the  Senate  and  the  House. 

9  See  p.  102.  '  Life  of  Horace  Mann,  p.  307. 


OH.!!.]  MILLARD  FILLMORE  179 

events  have  increased  the  probability  of  the  passage  of  that 
measure."1  Clay  confides  to  his  daughter  his  opinion  that 
the  death  of  General  Taylor  "  will  favor  the  passage  of  the 
compromise  bill," 2  while  Seward  lamented  that "  Providence 
has  at  last  led  the  man  of  hesitation  and  double  opinions 
to  the  crisis  where  decision  and  singleness  are  indispensa- 
ble."3 

The  announcement  of  the  cabinet  set  at  rest  all  doubts. 
President  Fillmore,  on  receiving  the  resignation  of  the  old 
cabinet,  had  at  once  determined  to  offer  the  office  of  Secre- 
tary of  State  to  Clay  or  Webster;  Clay,  however,  called  upon 
him  and  recommended  Webster.  Thereupon  he  tendered 
the  office  to  Webster,  who  after  some  deliberation,  but  with 
a  great  deal  of  reluctance,  accepted  it  and  advised  the  Presi- 
dent regarding  the  other  selections.4  Thomas  Corwin,  of 
Ohio,  received  the  Treasury  portfolio ;  Charles  M.  Conrad,  of 
Louisiana,  became  Secretary  of  War;  William  A.  Graham,  of 
North  Carolina,  had  the  Navy  Department ;  A.  H.  H.  Stuart, 
of  Virginia,  was  Secretary  of  the  Interior ;  Nathan  K.  Hall, 
of  New  York,  Postmaster-General,  and  John  J.  Crittenden, 
of  Kentucky,  was  Attorney-General. 

Four  of  the  members  came  from  the  slave-holding  States, 
but  they  were  men  of  moderate  views.  It  was  a  cabinet  fa- 
vorable to  the  compromise ;  and  Webster,  who  dominated 
the  new  administration,  used  its  whole  influence  and  power 
in  favor  of  the  scheme  for  which  he  had  contended  in  the 
Senate.  The  President,  moreover,  knew  well  the  use  of  offi- 
cial patronage,  and  before  long  the  cry  went  out  that  when- 


1  Letter  of  July  llth,  Webster's  Private  Correspondence,  vol.  ii.  p. 
376. 

8  Letter,  July  13th,  Private  Correspondence,  p.  611. 

8  Letter  of  Seward  to  his  wife,  July  12th,  Life  of  Seward,  vol.  ii.  p. 
145. 

4  See  letter  of  Fillmore  to  G.  T.  Curtis,  Life  of  Webster,  vol.  ii.  p.  465; 
also  Webster's  letter  to  Haven,  ibid. ;  and  his  letters  to  Harvey  and  Blatch- 
ford,  July  21st,  Webster's  Private  Correspondence,  vol.  ii.  p.  378. 


180  FILLMORE'S   ADMINISTRATION  [I860 

ever  practicable  Seward  men  were  removed  and  their  places 
filled  with  conservative  Whigs. 

In  the  meantime,  a  few  men  at  Santa  Fe,  with  an  eye  to 
their  own  advantage,  had  taken  steps  towards  the  f ormation 
of  a  State  government  for  New  Mexico.  This  move  was  sug- 
gested by  the  acting  military  governor  of  the  territory,  be- 
ing in  accordance  with  advice  from  General  Taylor's  Secre- 
tary of  War.  The  governor  called  a  convention,  which  as- 
sembled May  15th,  and  in  ten  days  framed  a  constitution  for 
the  State  of  New  Mexico.  This  constitution  prohibited  slav- 
ery ;  it  was  adopted  by  the  people  in  June,  the  vote  being 
8371  for  and  39  against  ratification.  A  governor,  legisla- 
ture and  a  congressman  were  chosen,  and  in  July  the  Legis- 
lature assembled  and  elected  senators.  Before  the  question 
of  the  admission  of  New  Mexico  as  a  State  could  be  formally 
brought  before  Congress,  a  territorial  government  had  been 
established,  and  the  matter  of  conferring  statehood  on  her 
was  not  considered.  The  project  could  not  have  received 
warm  support,  for  the  population  was  of  far  different  char- 
acter from  that  of  California.  While  there  were  one  hun- 
dred thousand  souls  in  the  territory,  two-fifths  were  Indians, 
three  or  four  thousand  were  proud  to  call  themselves  Castil- 
ians;  fifteen  hundred  were  emigrants  from  the  United  States, 
and  the  remainder  were  Mexicans — that  is,  of  the  Spanish-In- 
dian mixed  race.1  To  the  sprinkling  of  Americans  was  due 
the  political  organization.  "  Their  superior  intelligence  and 
energy,"  said  John  Bell  in  the  Senate, "  will  exercise  a  con- 
trolling influence  over  the  more  passive  and  tractable  Mexi- 
cans and  Indians."  They  had,  indeed,  formed  a  carpet-bag- 
ger government  on  a  magnificent  scale ;  and,  as  Clay  said 
when  it  was  foreshadowed  that  New  Mexico  might  apply 
for  admission  as  a  State,  "  It  would  be  ridiculous,  it  would 
be  farcical  [to  admit  her] ;  it  would  bring  into  contempt  the 
grave  matter  of  forming  commonwealths  as  sovereign  mem- 


1  The  population  of  the  territory,  exclusive  of  Indians,  according  to  the 
census  of  1850,  was :  white,  61,525 ;  free  colored,  22 ;  slaves,  none. 


CH.  H.]  THE  COMPROMISE   MEASURES  181 

bers  of  this  glorious  Union."  On  the  death  of  President 
Taylor  the  project  fell  to  the  ground  and  made  no  figure  in 
the  adjustment  of  the  controversy.' 

After  General  Taylor's  funeral  and  the  customary  eulo- 
gies, the  discussion  in  the  Senate  continued  on  the  so-called 
omnibus  bill  until  the  31st  of  July,  when  the  bill  was  order- 
ed to  be  engrossed  for  a  third  reading ;  but  it  had  been  so 
cut  down  by  the  amendments  that  nothing  remained  of  the 
original  measure  but  the  part  which  provided  a  territorial 
government  for  Utah  without  the  interdiction  of  slavery; 
in  that  shape,  it  was  passed.  From  the  debate  and  the  vote 
on  the  various  amendments,  however,  it  seemed  highly  prob- 
able that  every  recommendation  of  the  committee  of  thirteen 
could  be  made  law,  provided  each  article,  standing  as  an 
independent  measure,  were  considered  separately.  Senator 
Douglas,  chairman  of  the  committee  on  territories,  im- 
mediately introduced  a  bill  for  the  admission  of  California. 
After  this  had  been  discussed  for  a  few  days,  a  bill  was 
brought  in  which  devised  the  settlement  of  the  Texas  boun- 
dary, and  proposed  to  pay  Texas  ten  million  dollars  for  the 
relinquishment  of  her  claims  on  New  Mexico.  The  debate 
on  these  two  measures  went  on  side  by  side,  a  part  of  each 
sitting  being  devoted  to  California  and  a  part  to  the  Texas 
boundary.  A  vote  on  the  latter  question  was  first  reached ; 
it  was  taken  August  9th,  and  the  bill  passed  by  30  to  20. 
There  were  twelve  .votes  against  the  Texas  boundary  meas- 
ure from  the  slave  and  eight  from  the  free  States;  in 
the  main  they  were  those  of  extremists  from  the  South 
and  anti-slavery  Whigs  and  Free-soilers  from  the  North. 
Benton,  whom  it  is  difficult  to  classify,  joined  Seward  and 
Jefferson  Davis,  Chase  and  Atchison,  Hale  and  Mason,  in 
opposing  the  measure.  The  division  on  the  California  bill 
was  had  August  13th;  there  were  34  yeas  and  18  nays. 
The  yeas  were  fifteen  Northern  Democrats,  eleven  North- 


1  Arizona  and  New  Mexico,  H.  H.  Bancroft,  pp.  342, 446  et  seq. ;  Speech 
of  Clay,  May  31st,  and  of  John  Bell,  July  5th,  in  the  Senate. 


182  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1850 

era  Whigs,  four  Southern  "Whigs,  and  Chase,  Hale}  Ben- 
ton,  and  Houston  of  Texas.  The  nays  were  all  from  the 
slave  States,  and  all  Democrats  but  three.  The  next  day 
ten  Southern  senators,  among  whom  were  Jefferson  Davis, 
Atchison,  and  Mason,  presented  a  solemn  protest  against  the 
action  of  the  Senate  in  admitting  California.1  On  the  15th 
of  August  the  measure  establishing  a  territorial  government, 
without  the  Wilmot  proviso,  for  New  Mexico  was  passed. 
The  vote  was  a  light  one,  27  to  10 ;  the  nays  were  all  from 
the  North.  On  August  23d  the  Fugitive  Slave  law  was 
ordered  to  be  engrossed  for  a  third  reading,  which  was 
equivalent  to  its  passage,  by  a  vote  of  27  to  12.  The  nays 
were  eight  Northern  Whigs,  among  them  Winthrop  (the 
successor  of  Webster),  three  Northern  Democrats,  and  Chase ; 
there  were  fifteen  Northern  senators  who  did  not  vote.  The 
last  of  the  series  of  the  compromise  measures,  the  abolition 
of  the  slave-trade  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  passed  Sep- 
tember 16th  by  33  to  19 ;  the  nays  were  thirteen  Southern 
Democrats  and  six  Southern  Whigs. 

The  different  acts  embraced  in  the  compromise  were  dis- 
posed of  more  summarily  in  the  House.  The  Texas  Boun- 
dary bill,  to  which  was  added  the  New  Mexico  Territorial  bill, 
was  passed  September  6th  by  108  to  97.  The  division  was  on 
practically  the  same  lines  as  in  the  Senate  on  the  Texan  act ; 
as,  for  example,  every  member  from  South  Carolina  and 
Mississippi,  all  Democrats,  voted  against  it ;  and  on  the  same 
side  were  Giddings,  Horace  Mann,  Julian,  and  Thaddeus 
Stevens.  The  California  Admission  bill  went  through  the 
next  day  by  150  to  56.  All  the  nays  were  from  the  slave 
States,  and  among  them  were  two  prominent  Whigs,  Cling- 
man  and  Toombs,  who  had,  however,  but  seven  party  asso- 
ciates. Two  days  later  the  House  agreed  to  the  Senate 
Utah  bill.  On  September  12th,  the  Fugitive  Slave  law  was 


1  This  was  signed  by  the  two  Senators  from  Virginia,  South  Carolina, 
and  Florida,  and  by  one  each  from  Tennessee,  Louisiana,  Mississippi,  and 
Missouri— nine  Democrats  and  one  Whig. 


CH.II.]  THE  COMPROMISE  COMPLETED  183 

carried  through  the  House,  under  the  operation  of  the  pre- 
vious question,  by  109  to  76 ;  thirty-one  Northern  members 
voted  for  it,  among  them  three  Whigs.  Thirty-three  repre- 
sentatives from  the  North  were  either  absent  or  paired  or 
dodged  the  vote.  There  were  enough  of  the  latter  to  give 
force  to  the  dry  remark  of  Thaddeus  Stevens :  "  I  suggest 
that  the  Speaker  should  send  a  page  to  notify  the  members 
on  our  side  of  the  House  that  the  Fugitive  Slave  bill  has  been 
disposed  of,  and  that  they  may  now  come  back  into  the 
hall."  The  House  some  days  afterwards  concurred  in  the 
Senate  bill  for  the  abolition  of  the  slave-trade  in  the  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia,  and  the  series  of  measures  received  the 
approval  of  the  President. 

The  compromise  was  now  complete.  It  accorded  sub- 
stantially with  the  scheme  outlined  by  Clay  in  January.1  I 
have  made  the  analysis  of  the  vote  on  the  different  articles 
with  prolix  detail,  because  it  shows  clearly  how  the  com- 
promise was  carried  in  parts  when  it  was  impossible  to  enact 
it  as  a  whole.  Indeed,  there  were  only  four  senators  who 
voted  for  every  one  of  the  measures  which  made  up  the 
plan.3  Clay's  name  is  recorded  only  on  the  bill  for  the  aboli- 
tion of  the  slave-trade  in  the  District  of  Columbia;  for, 
worn  out  with  his  indefatigable  exertions,  he  had  sought  the 
air  of  the  sea  to  regain  his  strength,  and  was  at  Newport 
pending  the  determination  of  the  other  matters.  Of  course, 
had  he  been  in  the  Senate,  he  would  have  supported  every 
one  of  the  acts.  Douglas  favored  them  all,  but  was  un- 
avoidably absent  when  the  Fugitive  Slave  law  was  considered. 
Had  he  been  in  Washington  at  the  time,  he  would  have  given 
his  voice  for  the  act.8  Dickinson,  of  New  York,  was  a  friend 
to  each  one  of  the  series  of  measures,  but  his  name  is  not  re- 
corded for  the  New  Mexico  bill  nor  the  Fugitive  Slave  law, 


1  See  p.  122. 

9  Houston,  of  Texas ;  Dodge,  of  Iowa ;  Sturgeon,  of  Pennsylvania,  Den* 


ocrats ;  and  Wales,  of  Delaware,  Whig. 
1  Life  of  Douglas,  Sheahan,  p.  160. 


184  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [185« 

as  he  had  paired  with  his  colleague  Seward,  whose  state 
of  health  had  made  an  absence  from  Washington  neces- 
sary. 

The  influence  of  the  administration  was  powerfully  felt  in 
bringing  about  the  result.  "  Here,"  writes  Horace  Mann, "  are 
twenty,  perhaps  thirty,  men  from  the  North  in  this  House, 
who,  before  General  Taylor's  death,  would  have  sworn,  like 
St.  Paul,  not  to  eat  nor  drink  until  they  had  voted  the  pro- 
viso, who  now,  in  the  face  of  the  world,  turn  about,  defy  the 
instructions  of  their  States,  take  back  their  own  declarations, 
a  thousand  times  uttered,  and  vote  against  it." '  Webster 
was  as  active  in  his  support  of  the  compromise  as  when  in 
the  Senate,  and  his  private  letters  at  this  time  testify  how 
much  his  heart  was  bound  up  in  the  success  of  the  scheme 
he  had  advocated  at  so  great  a  cost.  When  the  affair  was 
practically  concluded,  he  writes :  "  I  confess  I  feel  relieved. 
Since  the  Yth  of  March,  there  has  not  been  an  hour  in  which 
I  have  not  felt  a  'crushing'  weight  of  anxiety  and  respon- 
sibility. ...  It  is  over.  My  part  is  acted,  and  I  am  satis- 
fied."9 

The  success  of  the  compromise  measures  was  due  to  their 
almost  unvarying  support  by  the  Northern  Democrats  and 
Southern  Whigs,  although  in  the  House  many  Northern 
Whigs,  owing  to  the  influence  of  Webster,  gave  strong  aid 
to  all  the  articles  except  the  Fugitive  Slave  law.  In  the 
Senate,  while  the  conservative  Northern  Whigs  supported 
the  Texas  Boundary  bill,  they  did  not  vote  for  the  territorial 
acts  and  the  Fugitive  Slave  bill.  The  whole  strength  of  the 
North  was  exerted  for  the  admission  of  California  and  the 
abolition  of  the  slave-trade  in  the  District  of  Columbia ;  that 
of  the  South  in  favor  of  the  more  effectual  act  for  the  rendi- 
tion of  runaway  slaves.  The  Southern  ultras,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  Jefferson  Davis,  voted  for  the  territorial  bills. 

The  vote  on  the  compromise  measures  portended  a  disso- 


1  Letter  of  Sept.  6th,  Life  of  Horace  Mann,  p.  322. 

*  Private  Correspondence,  vol.  ii.  p.  385,  Letter  to  Harvey,  Sept.  10th. 


CH.IL]  THE  FUGITIVE  SLAVE  LAW  185 

lution  of  the  existing  political  parties.  One  might  then  have 
conjectured  that  each  would  equally  suffer ;  but  the  actual 
tendency  was  towards  breaking  up  the  Whig  and  cementing 
the  Democratic  party. 

The  reader  who  peruses  the  foregoing  pages  will  under- 
stand sufficiently  the  scope  of  each  of  the  acts  of  the  com- 
promise except  the  Fugitive  Slave  law.  This  deserves  a 
fuller  notice,  for  its  effect  on  the  North  was  greater  than 
any  of  the  others,  and  it  was,  moreover,  one  of  the  most 
assailable  laws  ever  passed  by  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States.  Under  the  provisions  of  the  act,  ex-parte  evidence 
determined  the  identity  of  the  negro  who  was  claimed.  Even 
the  affidavit  of  the  owner  was  not  necessary;  tha":  of  his 
agent  or  attorney  would  suffice.  The  testimony  of  the  alleged 
fugitive  was  expressly  denied.  These  cases  were  ordinarily 
to  be  determined  by  commissioners  appointed  by  the  United 
States  circuit  courts,  and  these  courts  were  enjoined  to  in- 
crease the  number  of  commissioners  from  time  to  time,  "with 
a  view  to  afford  reasonable  facilities  to  reclaim  fugitives 
from  labor."  It  was  the  duty  of  a  commissioner  (or  of  a 
court  or  judge)  "  to  hear  and  determine  the  case  of  a  claim- 
ant in  a  summary  manner."  When  the  negro  was  adjudged 
to  the  claimant,  the  latter  had  authority  "  to  use  such  rea- 
sonable force  and  restraint  as  may  be  necessary"  to  remove 
the  fugitive  to  the  State  from  which  he  escaped.  No  proc- 
ess could  be  issued  "  by  any  court,  judge,  or  magistrate,  or 
other  person  whomsoever"  for  the  "molestation"  of  the 
slave-owner,  his  agent,  or  attorney,  after  the  ownership  of 
the  negro  was  determined  in  the  manner  recited  in  the  act. 
The  United  States  marshals  and  their  deputies  were  obliged 
to  make  unusual  exertions  to  execute  the  law  under  penalty 
of  a  heavy  fine.  In  case  the  slave  escaped,  they  were  liable 
to  a  civil  suit  for  his  value.  In  the  event  of  an  attempt  being 
made  to  prevent  the  arrest  of  the  alleged  fugitive  or  to  rescue 
him,  the  commissioners,  or  persons  appointed  by  them,  were 
empowered  "to  summon  and  call  to  their  aid  the  bystanders 
or  posse  comitatus  of  the  proper  county ; .  . .  and  all  good 


186  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1850 

citizens  are  hereby  commanded  to  aid  and  assist  in  the 
prompt  and  efficient  execution  of  this  law,  whenever  their 
services  may  be  required,  as  aforesaid,  for  that  purpose." 
If  any  person  shall  "  willingly  hinder  or  prevent "  the  claim- 
ant from  arresting  the  fugitive,  or  "  shall  rescue  or  attempt 
to  rescue,  ...  or  shall  harbor  or  conceal "  the  fugitive,  such 
person  is  "  subject  to  a  fine  not  exceeding  one  thousand  dol- 
lars or  imprisonment  not  exceeding  six  months ; . . .  and  shall, 
moreover,  forfeit  and  pay  by  way  of  civil  damages  to  the 
party  injured  by  such  illegal  conduct  the  sum  of  one  thou- 
sand dollars  for  each  fugitive  so  lost."  In  case  the  commis- 
sioner determined  that  the  service  of  the  negro  was  due  the 
claimant,  his  fee  was  ten  dollars,  and  one-half  of  that  amount 
if  the  alleged  fugitive  was  discharged. 

The  mere  statement  of  the  provisions  of  this  law  is  its 
condemnation.  It  was  a  maxim  among  Roman  lawyers  that 
if  a  question  arose  about  the  civil  status  of  an  individual,  he 
was  presumed  to  be  free  until  proved  to  be  a  slave.1  The 
burden  of  proof  lay  on  the  master,  the  benefit  of  the  doubt 
was  on  the  side  of  the  weaker  party.  Under  this  act  of 
ours,  the  negro  had  no  chance  :  the  meshes  of  the  law  were 
artfully  contrived  to  aid  the  master  and  entrap  the  slave. 
It  seems  amazing  that  recent  legislation  in  Christian  Amer- 
ica on  this  vital  point  went  backward  from  pagan  Rome, 
and  it  is  almost  impossible  to  portray  the  spirit  of  the  time 
in  a  manner  that  shall  enable  us  to  make  allowance  for  the 
men  who  passed  this  act.  The  Northern  men  who  support- 
ed the  bill  or  dodged  the  vote  went  counter  to  public  senti- 
ment at  the  North,  which  was  decidedly  against  such  a 
measure.  Nor  was  it  indispensable  to  prevent  disunion. 
The  cotton  States  might  rally  for  an  overt  act  of  secession  in 
case  the  Wilmot  proviso  were  passed,  or  if  slavery  were  abol- 
ished in  the  District ;  but  they  would  not  on  the  fugitive 
slave  question.  Indeed,  when  the  law  passed  the  Senate  it 


1  Lecky's  History  of  Morals,  vol.  i.  p.  313 ;  Webster's  Works,  vol.  v. 
p.  309. 


CH.H.]  THE  FUGITIVE  SLAVE  LAW  187 

was  generally  supposed  that  it  would  undergo  amendment 
in  the  House  in  a  manner  to  soften  its  requirements.1 

The  cotton  States  were  not  the  great  sufferers  from  the 
loss  of  negroes.  There  were  more  fugitives  from  the  four 
border  States  of  Maryland,  Virginia,  Kentucky,  and  Missouri 
than  from  all  the  rest  of  the  slave  States,2  and  most  of  the 
congressmen  from  the  border  States  would  have  been  Satis- 
fied with  a  less  stringent  measure  than  the  actual  one.  It 
was  apparent  to  every  one  who  knew  anything  of  the  senti- 
ments of  the  North  that  this  law  could  not  be  thoroughly 
executed.  Seward  had  truly  said  that  if  the  South  wished 
their  runaway  negroes  returned  they  must  alleviate,  not  in- 
crease, the  rigors  of  the  law  of  1793 ;'  and  to  give  the  alleged 
fugitive  a  jury  trial,  as  Webster  proposed,  was  the  only  possi- 
ble way  to  effect  the  desired  purpose^. 

If  we  look  below  the  surface  Ave  shall  find  a  strong  im- 
pelling motive  of  the  Southern  clamor  for  this  harsh  enact- 
ment other  than  the  natural  desire  to  recover  lost  property. 
Early  in  the  session  it  took  air  that  a  part  of  the  game  of 
the  disunionists  was  to  press  a  stringent  fugitive  slave  law, 
for  which  no  Northern  man  could  vote ;  and  when  it  was 
defeated,  the  North  would  be  charged  with  refusing  to  car- 
ry out  a  stipulation  of  the  Constitution.4  Douglas  stated  in 
the  Senate  that  while  there  was  some  ground  for  complaint 
on  the  subject  of  surrender  of  fugitives  from  service,  it  had 
been  greatly  exaggerated.  The  excitement  and  virulence 
were  not  along  the  line  bordering  on  the  free  and  slave 
States,  but  bet  ween  Vermont  and  South  Carolina,  New  Hamp- 
shire and  Alabama,  Connecticut  and  Louisiana.5  Clay  gave 
vent  to  his  astonishment  that  Arkansas,  Louisiana,  Georgia, 


1  Remarks  of  Douglas  in  the  Senate,  Dec.,  1851,  Life,  by  Sheahan,  p.  161. 

a  The  number  of  slaves  escaped  for  the  year  ending  June  1st,  1850, 
from  Maryland,  Kentucky,  Virginia,  and  Missouri,  was  540;  from  all  other 
States,  470.  Compiled  for  New  York  Tribune  from  census  returns.  Trib- 
une, Aug.  28th,  1851.  *  See  p.  163. 

4  New  York  Tribune,  Feb.  2d.  •  Speech,  March  13th. 


188  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1850 

and  South  Carolina,  States  which  very  rarely  lost  a  slave, 
demanded  a  stricter  law  than  Kentucky,  which  lost  many.1 
After  the  act  was  passed  Senator  Butler,  of  South  Carolina, 
said :  "  I  would  just  as  soon  have  the  law  of  1793  as  the 
present  law,  for  any  purpose,  so  far  as  regards  the  reclama- 
tion of  fugitive  slaves;"  and  another  Southern  ultra  thought 
it  would  never  be  productive  of  much  good  to  his  sec- 
tion.2 Six  months  after  the  passage  of  the  law,  Seward  ex- 
presses the  matured  opinion  "that  political  ends — merely 
political  ends — and  not  real  evils,  resulting  from  the  escape 
of  slaves,  constituted  the  prevailing  motives  to  the  enact- 
ment." *  The  admission  of  California  was  a  bitter  pill  for 
the  Southern  ultras,  but  they  were  forced  to  take  it.  The 
Fugitive  Slave  law  was  a  taunt  and  reproach  to  that  part 
of  the  North  where  the  anti- slavery  sentiment  ruled  su- 
premely, and  was  deemed  a  partial  compensation. 

President  Fillmore's  notoriety  of  later  years  came  for  the 
most  part  from  his  writing  "Approved  Sept.  18th,  1850," 
under  the  Fugitive  Slave  law.  This  infamous  act  has  blight- 
ed the  reputation  of  every  one  who  had  any  connection 
with  it,  and  he  has  suffered  with  the  rest ;  yet  it  appears 
to  me  unjustly.  It  would  have  been  a  rash  move  on  the 
part  of  the  President  to  unsettle  by  his  veto  a  question 
which  had  so  long  distracted  the  country,  and  which  Con- 
gress had  apparently  composed,  unless  he  could  do  so  on 
constitutional  grounds.  Before  signing  the  law,  he  request- 
ed the  opinion  of  his  Attorney-General  on  its  constitution- 
ality :  this  Crittenden  affirmed  in  positive  terms.4  "Webster, 
his  Secretary  of  State,  and  the  ablest  lawyer  in  the  country, 
likewise  believed  the  law  constitutional.6  It  is,  therefore, 


1  Remarks  in  Senate,  May  13th  and  21st. 

*  In  Senate,  Feb.  22d,  1851.     "  We  have  no  faith  in  this  Fugitive  Slave 
bill."— Zte  Bow's  fieview,  Nov.,  1850. 

*  Letter  to  a  Massachusetts  convention  opposed  to  the  Fugitive  Slave 
law,  April  5th,  1851,  Works,  vol.  iii.  p.  446. 

*  For  this  opinion,  see  Life  of  Crittenden,  Coleman,  vol.  i.  p.  377. 
'  Private  Correspondence,  vol.  ii.  p.  402* 


CH.IL]  THE  COMPROMISE  189 

difficult  to  see  how  the  President  could  do  otherwise  than 
give  his  approval  to  the  compromise  which  had  the  seal  of 
Congress. 

A  few  considerations  on  the  compromise  as  a  whole  may 
be  proper  before  proceeding  to  relate  how  the  country  re- 
ceived the  action  of  its  representatives.  It  has  sometimes 
been  set  forth  as  an  abject  surrender  to  the  South,1  but  this 
is  an  unwarranted  judgment.  If  we  might  eliminate  the 
insulting  provisions  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  act,  it  would  be 
safe  to  say  that  it  was  an  eminently  fair  settlement  for  the 
North.3  The  essential  and  permanent  advantage  gained  in 
the  whole  series  of  measures  was  the  admission  of  California 
as  a  free  State.  The  territorial  question  has  been  already 
considered.3  Giddings  made  an  impassioned  appeal  against 
the  Texas  Boundary  bill.  He  said :  "  Sir,  the  payment  of 
this  ten  million  of  dollars  constituted  the  most  objectionable 
feature  of  the  '  omnibus  bill.'  It  is  designed  to  raise  Texas 
scrip  from  fifteen  cents  upon  the  dollar  to  par  value;  to 
make  every  dollar  of  Texas  scrip  worth  six  and  a  half;  to 
make  many  splendid  fortunes  in  a  short  time ;  to  rob  the 
people,  the  laboring  men  of  the  nation,  of  this  vast  sum,  and 
place  it  in  the  hands  of  stock-jobbers  and  gamblers  in  Texas 
scrip." 4  Yet  it  is  undeniable  that  Texas  had  a  claim  on  the 
United  States  for  a  portion  of  her  debt,6  and  this  bill  caused 
little  dissatisfaction  at  the  North.  The  only  plan  besides  the 
compromise  which  had  Northern  friends  was  that  of  Presi- 


1  Jefferson  Davis,  in  a  speech  made  at  Jackson,  Miss.,  July  6th,  1859, 
spoke  of  1850  as  "that  dark  period  for  Southern  rights,"  and  said, 
"Though  defeated  on  that  occasion,  Southern  rights  gained  much  by 
the  discussion." — New  York  Tribune,  Aug.  31st,  1859. 

1  "  I  think,  regarding  the  thing  as  a  compromise,  Mr.  Clay  has  done  very 
well."— Letter  of  Horace  Mann,  Feb.  14th,  Life,  p.  289. 

'  See  p.  149  et  seq. 

*  Speech  in  the  House,  Aug.  12th. 

5  H.  H.  Bancroft,  in  New  Mexico  and  Arizona,  p.  457,  states  that  about 
one-half  of  the  $10,000,000  was  bonus,  the  intimation  being  that  the  other 
half  was  a  just  payment.  See  also  New  York  Tribune,  June  18th. 


190  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1850 

dent  Taylor,  and  this  left  the  Texas  boundary  question  un- 
settled. In  case  Texas  should  endeavor  to  assert  her  claim 
by  force  of  arms,  General  Taylor  determined  to  resist  with 
Federal  troops  any  invasion  into  New  Mexico,  and  he  doubt- 
ed not  that  he  would  be  successful.  His  military  confidence 
was,  indeed,  well  founded ;  but  danger  existed  that  in  case 
blood  were  shed,  the  South  would  take  sides  with  Texas. 
"  The  cause  of  Texas  in  such  a  conflict  will  be  the  cause 
of  the  entire  South,"  wrote  Alexander  H.  Stephens,1  and 
he  expressed  the  almost  unanimous  feeling  of  the  cotton 
States. 

Overt  secession,  immediate  disunion,  were  not  the  dangers 
that  Clay  and  Webster  most  feared.  Both  of  them  pro- 
claimed where  they  would  be  found  in  any  such  event. 
Clay  said  in  the  Senate :  "  I  should  deplore,  as  much  as  any 
man  living  or  dead,  that  arms  should  be  raised  against  the 
authority  of  the  Union  either  by  individuals  or  by  States. 
But ...  if  any  one  State,  or  the  portion  of  the  people  of  any 
State,  choose  to  place  themselves  in  military  array  against 
the  government  of  the  Union,  I  am  for  trying  the  strength 
of  the  government.  I  am  for  ascertaining  whether  we  have 
got  a  government  or  not.  .  .  .  Kor,  sir,  am  I  to  be  alarmed 
or  dissuaded  from  any  such  course  by  intimations  of  the 
spilling  of  blood." 2  The  cabinet  circular,  written  by  "Web- 
ster in  October,  which  he  wanted  sent  to  every  official  of 
the  United  States,  shows  clearly  that  he  was  ready  to  resist 
with  the  whole  power  of  the  government  any  overt  act  on 
the  part  of  the  South ; 3  and  the  following  June  he  said  to 
a  Virginian  audience:  "But  one  thing,  gentlemen,  be  as- 
sured of,  the  first  step  taken  in  the  programme  of  seces- 


1  To  the  editor  of  the  National  Intelligencer,  July  4th. 

»  Remarks  in  the  Senate,  Aug.  1st. 

*  This  paper  was  objected  to  by  the  cabinet,  for  political  reasons,  and 
was  not  used.  It  was  not  printed  till  1882.  Lodge,  p.  331 ;  Webster  Cen- 
tennial volume,  Oct.  12th,  1882.  I  am  indebted  for  this  latter  reference 
to  Mr.  Lodge. 


CH.  II.]  CLAY  AND  WEBSTER  191 

sion,  which  shall  be  an  actual  infringement  of  the  Constitu* 
tion  or  the  laws,  will  be  promptly  met." ' 

But  the  key  to  the  action  of  Webster  and  Clay  is  not 
found  in  a  desire  to  preserve  merely  an  external  Union. 
They  strove  for  a  union  of  hearts  as  well  as  a  union  of 
law.  They  hoped  to  see  exist  between  the  two  sections, 
as  Webster  said,  "  the  sense  of  fraternal  affection,  patriotic 
love,  and  mutual  regard ;" a  or,  as  Clay  put  it,  "  dissolution 
of  the  Union  ...  may  not  in  form  take  place ;  but  next  to 
that  is  a  dissolution  of  those  fraternal  and  kindred  ties  that 
bind  us  together  as  one  free,  Christian,  and  commercial  peo- 
ple. In  my  opinion,  the  body  politic  cannot  be  preserved  un- 
less this  agitation,  this  distraction,  this  exasperation,  which 
is  going  on  between  the  two  sections  of  the  country,  shall 
cease." ?  That  their  work  came  to  naught  was  not  their 
fault.  Clay  did  not  think  the  present  crisis  more  serious 
than  that  of  1820.4  The  Missouri  Compromise  had,  in  his 
view,  prevented  disturbance  thirty  years,  and  from  his  point 
of  view  the  hope  was  reasonable  that  the  present  settlement 
might  endure  as  long. 

When  Congress  met,  it  was  admitted  on  all  hands  that 
legislative  action  was  necessary.  Clay  and  Webster  were 
the  foremost  men  in  Congress ;  the  responsibility  of  carry- 
ing a  scheme  devolved  upon  them.  The  plan  which  they 
ghould  adopt  must  be  one  that  could  win  a  majority  of  both 
Houses,  even  if  they  had  to  sacrifice  some  personal  predilec- 
tions. It  was  apparent  at  the  outset  that  while  the  Wilmot 
proviso  might  obtain  a  majority  of  the  House,  it  could  not 
carry  the  Senate,  and  it  was  therefore  excluded.  And  while 
an  undoubted  majority  of  both  Houses  favored  the  admis- 
sion of  California,  it  seemed  impossible  to  bring  that  ques- 
tion fairly  before  the  House.  Fifty  members  could  block 
legislation,  and  more  than  that  number  were  ready  to  op- 


1  Speech  at  Capon  Springs,  June,  1851.  J  7th-of-March  speech. 

'  Speech  in  Senate,  May  21st.  *  Ibid. 


!92  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1850 

pose  by  any  means  an  attempt  to  force  through  the  Cali- 
fornia bill  without  a  settlement  of  the  other  matters  in 
dispute ;  and  the  leaders  trumped  up  plausible  reasons  for 
those  who  needed  them.  Unless  I  greatly  deceive  myself, 
these  two  considerations,  with  what  has  been  previously 
urged,  are  sufficient  to  justify  the  compromise  devised  by 
Clay  and  supported  by  Webster.1  No  one  can  read  care- 
fully the  debates  in  which  these  two  men  took  part,  at  the 
same  time  illuminating  their  public  utterances  by  the  light 
of  their  private  letters,  without  arriving  at  the  conclusion 
that  the  mainspring  of  their  action  was  unselfish  devotion 
to  what  they  believed  the  good  of  their  country.  But  their 
course  brought  censure  on  them  both,  for,  in  the  opinion 
of  their  respective  sections,  Clay  yielded  too  much  to  the 
North,  and  Webster  too  much  to  the  South.  The  senator 
from  Kentucky  was  abused  by  the  South,  the  senator  from 
Massachusetts  condemned  by  the  North.  Clay,  being  a  con- 
summate party  leader,  finally  rallied  to  his  support  most  of 
the  Southern  Whigs ;  Webster,  lacking  that  art,  and  having 
to  deal  with  a  greater  independence  of  sentiment,  never  won 
the  thinkers  and  persuaders  of  the  Northern  Whig  party  to 
his  side. 

In  awarding  this  praise  to  the  two  great  Unionists,  does 
it  follow  that  the  muse  of  history  must  condemn  the  anti- 
slavery  Whigs  and  Free-soilers  who  opposed  the  compro- 
mise ?  By  no  means.  It  is  true  that  had  these  men  co-ope- 
rated with  the  compromisers,  the  scheme  as  finally  enacted 
might  have  been  more  favorable  to  the  North,  and  it  is 
certain  that  the  Fugitive  Slave  law  could  have  been  modi- 
fied or  defeated.  The  parting  of  the  ways  was  at  the  Wil- 
mot  proviso.  The  same  information  which  Webster  and 
Clay  had  in  regard  to  the  territories  was  open  to  Seward, 
Chase,  and  their  coadjutors.  They  must  have  known  that 


1  Clay  is  not  responsible  for  the  actual  Fugitive  Slave  law.  The  bill 
reported  from  the  committee  of  thirteen  was  a  milder  measure.  As  I 
have  before  stated,  he  was  not  in  the  Senate  when  the  law  was  passed. 


CH.IL]  SEWARD  AND   CHASE  195 

the  probabilities  were  against  the  introduction  of  slavery 
into  New  Mexico  and  Utah.1     But  they  felt  that  a  stand 
must  be  made  on  the  principle  of  permitting  no  more  slav- 
ery in  the  national  domain,  and,  while  the  Southern  ultras 
were  dreaming  and  talking  of  the  conquest  of  Mexico  and 
Cuba,  they  determined  it  should  be  known  that  there  was 
a  band  of  men  totally  opposed  to  the  conquest  of  more  ter- 
ritory, unless  it  were  expressly  understood  that  it  should  be 
dedicated  to  freedom.     Hale  urged,  also,  that  if  the  "Wilmot 
proviso  were  conceded,  it  would  only  satisfy  the  South  for 
a  little  while,  when  they  would  make  new  demands.*     It 
was,  moreover,  obvious  to  an  astute  politician  like  Seward, 
and  probably  to  others,  that  a  dissolution  of  political  parties 
was  imminent;  that,  to  oppose  the  extension  of  slavery, 
the  different  anti-slavery  elements  must  be  fused  into  an 
organized  whole;  it  might  be  called  Whig  or  some  other 
name,  but  it  would  be  based  on  the  principle  of  the  "Wil- 
mot proviso.     Throughout  Seward's   speeches   and  letters 
one  may  discover  his  confident  belief,  not  only  in  the  ul- 
timate triumph  of  this  principle,  but  in  the  success  of  the 
party  organization  that  should  make  it  a  platform.     The 
impartial  years,  therefore,  have  vindicated   as  right  the 
course  of  Seward,  Chase,  Hale  in  the  Senate,  and  that  of 
Giddings,  Mann,  and  Thaddeus  Stevens  in  the  House.    Yet 
even  the  opposers  of  the  compromise  must,  in  after-life, 
have  admitted  to  themselves  that  it  was  exceedingly  fortu- 
nate that  Clay's  scheme  was  adopted.     Looked  on  merely 
as  a  truce  between  the  two  sections,  what  a  victory  for  the 
North  it  turned  out  to  be !    Not  only  was  the  North  rela- 
tively more  powerful  when  the  trial  came,  but  the  North- 
west, which  in  1850  was  as  closely  connected  commercially 
with  the  South  by  the  Mississippi  River  as  it  was  with  the 
East  by  the  lakes,  had  become  joined  to  New  York  and 
New  England  by  iron  bands  that  brought  closer  mercantile 


1  For  example,  see  letter  of  Horace  Mann,  Life,  p.  294. 
1  Remarks  of  Hale,  Senate,  May  28th. 
L— 13 


194  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  f!850 

ties  and  more  intimate  social  and  political  intercourse.  The 
Northwest  was  in  sentiment  as  well  as  in  population  a  far 
stronger  tower  in  1860  than  it  would  have  been  ten  years 
earlier.1  The  Northwestern  States  in  1850  were  Indiana, 
Illinois,  Michigan,  Wisconsin,  and  Iowa ;  their  ten  senators, 
and  all  their  representatives  in  Congress  but  four,  were 
Democrats.  Considering  that  the  slavery  question  in  1850 
was  not  a  party  one,  this  is  not  a  fact  of  the  greatest  mo- 
ment, but  from  the  subsequent  political  leaning  of  these 
States  it  is  one  of  interest. 

The  response  of  the  North  to  the  action  of  Congress  was 
on  the  whole  favorable.  The  question  had  been  a  disquiet- 
ing one  for  two  years,  and  the  settlement  caused  a  marked 
feeling  of  relief.  In  the  United  States  an  accomplished 
fact,  a  decision  of  the  majority,  has  wonderful  power ;  and 
many  who  objected  to  the  compromise  before  its  enactment 
became  its  firm  friends  after  it  was  engrossed  in  the  statute- 
book.  Business  interests  and  men  had,  in  the  main,  favored 
the  proposed  adjustment,  and  were  well  satisfied  with  the 
conclusion  of  the  matter,  for  trade  loves  political  repose. 
The  iron  manufacturers  of  Pennsylvania,  the  cotton  and 
woollen  manufacturers  of  New  England,  had  an  additional 
reason  of  satisfaction.  They  were  especially  glad  to  see 
the  slavery  question  disposed  of,  for  now  they  thought  Con- 
gress could  turn  its  attention  to  raising  the  duties  fixed  by 
the  tariff  of  1846.  They  had  no  hope  of  accomplishing 
anything  at  this  session,  for  it  had  already  continued  longer 
than  any  previous  sitting ;  but  they  thought  the  field  was 
clear  for  action  when  Congress  should  next  assemble. 

The  people  testified  in  the  usual  way  their  sanction  of 
the  work  of  their  representatives.  Boston  seemed  espe- 
cially enthusiastic.  A  national  salute  of  one  hundred  guns 
was  fired  on  the  Common  "  as  a  testimonial  of  joy  on  the 
part  of  the  citizens  of  Boston,  of  both  political  parties,  at 


1  This  idea  was  suggested  to  me  by  James  W.  Bradbury,  a  senator 
from  Maine  in  1850,  and  an  influential  supporter  of  the  compromise. 


CH.IL]  NORTHERN  SENTIMENT  195 

the  adoption  of  the  late  measures  of  Congress."1  Ten 
thousand  names  signed  the  call  for  a  Union  meeting  at 
New  York  City.8  It  was  large  and  enthusiastic;  it  cor- 
dially approved  the  compromise,  declared  the  Fugitive  Slave 
law  constitutional,  promised  to  support  the  execution  of  it, 
and  deprecated  the  further  agitation  of  slavery.  At  Phila- 
delphia there  was  a  meeting  of  six  or  seven  thousand;8 
the  resolutions  were  similar  to  those  of  New  York,  but,  in 
addition,  they  demanded  the  repeal  of  the  Pennsylvania 
statute  which  conflicted  with  the  execution  of  the  Fugitive 
Slave  law.  A  Union  meeting  at  Concord,  IS".  H.,*  which 
was  addressed  by  Franklin  Pierce,  approved  the  compro- 
mise, opposed  the  higher-law  doctrine,  and  gave  a  mild 
approbation  to  the  measure  for  the  recovery  of  runaway 
negroes.  An  enthusiastic  assemblage  at  Dayton,  O.,B  urged 
thereto  by  the  eloquence  of  Clement  L.  Yallandigham, 
declared  that  the  settlement  was  the  "best  attainable," 
and  that  "  the  Union,  the  Constitution,  and  the  laws  must 
and  shall  be  maintained."  A  Union  meeting  in  Cincinnati ' 
adopted  similar  resolutions,  and  condemned  further  agita- 
tion of  the  slave  question.  Finally,  Faneuil  Hall  resounded 
with  the  eloquence  of  Kufus  Choate  and  Benjamin  E.  Cur- 
tis,7 the  great  lawyers  of  Boston.  Their  hearers  resolved 
that  the  adjustment  "  ought  to  be  carried  out  in  good  faith," 
and  that  "  every  form  of  resistance  to  the  execution  of  a 
law,  except  legal  process,  is  subversive  and  tends  to  anarchy." 


1  Boston  Advertiser,  Sept.  21st. 

*  Oct.  30th.    New  York  Tribune;  but  this  journal  thinks  that,  "con- 
sidering the  threats  held  out  of  publishing  the  names  of  all  traders 
who  refused  to  sign  as  men  to  be  avoided  by  Southern  purchasers 
in  our  market,  it  is  rather  surprising  that  they  were  not  able  to  sweep 
clean  the  mercantile  streets."     Perkins,  Warren  &  Co.  published  a  card 
in  the  National  Intelligencer  of  Dec.  17th  denying  that  they  were  abolition 
merchants,  a  report  which  had  got  into  circulation  in  the  South. 

9  Nov.  21st,  New  York  Tribune.          *  Nov.  20th,  Boston  Advertiser. 

*  Oct.  26th,  National  Intelligencer.       *  Nov.  14th,  ibid. 
7  Nov.  26th,  Boston  Advertiser. 


106  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1850 

When  it  was  known  that  the  compromise  would  certain- 
ly be  adopted,  the  National  Intelligencer  remarked  that  it 
could  fill  a  double  sheet  of  forty-eight  columns  with  ex- 
tracts full  of  joy  and  gratulation  from  the  Southern  and 
Western  papers  alone  at  the  success  of  the  measure.1  The 
States  of  Maryland,  Virginia,  Kentucky,  and  Missouri  were 
thoroughly  satisfied.  The  Georgia  convention  was  held  in 
December.  It  was  a  representative  body ;  over  71,000,  or 
three-quarters  of  the  voters  of  the  State,  had  taken  part  in 
the  election  of  delegates.3  While  it  did  not  wholly  approve 
of  the  compromise,  it  would  abide  by  it  as  a  "permanent 
adjustment  of  the  sectional  controversy."  The  fifth  reso- 
lution stated,  "  That  it  is  the  deliberate  opinion  of  this  con- 
vention that  upon  the  faithful  execution  of  the  Fugitive 
Slave  bill  by  the  proper  authorities  depends  the  preserva- 
tion of  our  much-loved  Union."3  New  Orleans  held  an 
enthusiastic  Union  meeting.  In  fact,  the  people  of  the 
South,  outside  of  South  Carolina  and  Mississippi,  were  gen- 
erally satisfied  with  the  result,  and  even  in  Mississippi  a 
strong  Union  feeling  existed.  An  adjourned  meeting  of  the 
Nashville  Convention  was  held  in  November;  the  attend- 
ance was  small,  and  the  proceedings  attracted  little  atten- 
tion. The  convention  complained  of  the  failure  to  extend 
the  Missouri  Compromise  line  to  the  Pacific,  of  the  admis- 
sion of  California,  of  the  organization  of  the  territories 
without  protection  to  property  of  the  South,  of  the  dismem- 
berment of  Texas,  and  of  the  abolition  of  the  slave-trade 
in  the  District  of  Columbia ;  it  asserted  the  right  of  seces- 
sion,4 but  these  declarations  had  little  responsive  echo 
beyond  South  Carolina  and  Mississippi. 

A  large  number  of  active  and  influential  people  at  the 
North,  however,  totally  condemned  the  Fugitive  Slave  law. 
An  immense  Free-soil  meeting  at  Lowell,  Mass.,  a  gathering 
of  all  parties  in  Syracuse,  N.  Y.,  an  indignation  meeting  at 


1  Sept.  17th.  *  National  Intelligencer,  Dec.  14th. 

•  Boston  Atlas,  Dec.  17th.  *  National  Intelligencer,  Nov.  26th. 


CH.H.]  NORTHERN  SENTIMENT  197 

Springfield,  Mass.,  denounced  the  enactment.1  On  October 
14th  several  thousand  people  filled  Faneuil  Hall  with  a  like 
purpose ;  they  were  presided  over  by  Charles  Francis  Adams ; 
a  sympathetic  letter  from  the  veteran  Josiah  Quincy  was 
read,  and  the  burning  eloquence  of  Wendell  Phillips  and 
Theodore  Parker  animated  the  people.  They  resolved  that 
the  law  was  against  the  golden  rule  and  God's  own  com- 
mand ;  that  it  was  contradictory  of  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence and  inconsistent  with  the  Constitution.2  In  the 
latter  part  of  the  same  month  the  common  council  of  Chi- 
cago declared  that  the  act  for  the  recovery  of  fugitive  slaves 
violated  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  the  laws 
of  God ;  that  senators  and  representatives  from  the  free 
States  who  voted  for  the  bill,  or  "  basely  sneaked  away  from 
their  seats  and  thereby  evaded  the  question,  ...  are  fit  only 
to  be  ranked  with  the  traitors  Benedict  Arnold  and  Judas 
Iscariot."  One  of  the  resolutions  requested  citizens,  officers, 
and  police  of  the  city  to  abstain  from  all  interference  in  the 
capture  of  any  fugitive.  But  while  one  meeting  of  citizens 
sustained  the  resolutions  of  the  common  council,  a  larger  one, 
succeeding  the  first,  though  mainly  composed  of  the  same 
people,  was  over-persuaded  by  the  vigorous  oratory  of  Sena- 
tor Douglas,  and  resolved  that  all  laws  of  Congress  ought 
to  be  faithfully  executed.  Douglas  afterwards  boasted  in 
the  Senate  that  this  speech  of  his  was  the  first  public  one 
"ever  made  in  a  free  State  in  defence  of  the  Fugitive  law, 
and  the  Chicago  meeting  was  the  first  public  assemblage  in 
any  free  State  that  determined  to  support  and  sustain  it."3 
Charles  Sumner  addressed  a  Faneuil  Hall  meeting  early  in 
November.  He  did  not  believe  that  the  Fugitive  Slave  law 
would  be  executed  in  Massachusetts,  but  he  continued :  "  I 
counsel  no  violence.  There  is  another  power,  stronger  than 


1  These  meetings  took  place  in  October.     Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave 
Power,  vol.  ii.  pp.  305  and  306  ;  Boston  Advertiser,  Oct.  2d. 
8  Boston  Atlas,  Oct.  15th. 
*  Life  of  Douglas,  Sheahan,  p.  162  et  seq. 


198  FILLMORE'S   ADMINISTRATION  [1850 

any  individual  arm,  which  I  invoke ;  I  mean  that  irresistible 
public  opinion  inspired  by  love  of  God  and  man,  which,  with- 
out violence  or  noise,  gently  as  the  operations  of  nature, 
makes  and  unmakes  laws.  Let  this  public  opinion  be  felt 
in  its  might,  and  the  Fugitive  Slave  bill  will  become  every- 
where among  us  a  dead  letter."  l 

A  very  potent  influence  on  political  sentiment  now  began 
to  be  exerted  on  the  anti-slavery  side.  Preachers  in  their 
pulpits,  in  meetings,  in  conference,  in  synod,  pronounced 
against  the  Fugitive  Slave  act  as  being  in  conflict  with  the 
law  of  God.*  The  great  majority  of  the  Protestant  clergy 
of  the  North  unquestionably  sympathized  with  this  senti- 
ment. The  working  of  this  act  was  in  one  respect  especially 
iniquitous.  Applied  to  fugitive  slaves,  no  matter  when  they 
had  escaped,  it  was  an  ex  post  facto  law :  it  thus  brought  un- 
der its  provisions  negroes  who  had  been  living  in  peace  and 
quiet  for  many  years  at  the  North.  There  was  no  statute 
of  limitations  for  the  escaped  bondman.  All  over  the  North, 
immediately  on  the  passage  of  the  act,  these  negroes  took 
alarm,  and  thousands  fled  to  Canada,  abandoning  their  homes 
and  forsaking  situations  which  gave  them  a  livelihood.' 
There  was  so  much  excitement  among  the  negro  population 
of  Boston  that  the  Faneuil  Hall  meeting  before  referred  to 
pledged  their  colored  citizens  their  help,  advised  them  to 
stay,  and  to  have  no  fear  of  being  taken  back  to  bondage. 


1  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power,  vol.  ii.  p.  308. 

»  Ibid.,  p.  310. 

'  Life  of  William  Lloyd  Garrison,  vol.  iii.  p.  302. 


CHAPTER  III 

FOR  the  sake  of  fixing  the  attention  of  the  reader  on  the 
compromise  measures,  certain  events  have  been  passed  over 
which,  before  leaving  the  year  1850,  should  receive  mention. 

The  most  important  diplomatic  achievement  of  the  Taylor 
administration  was  the  negotiation  of  the  Clay  ton- Bui  wer 
treaty.  A  ship-canal  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific  was 
dreamed  of  as  early  as  1826,  and  is  referred  to  by  Clay  in 
one  of  his  diplomatic  instructions.  Should  such  a  canal  be 
constructed, "  the  benefits  of  it,"  he  wrote, "  ought  not  to  be 
exclusively  appropriated  to  any  one  nation,  but  should  be 
extended  to  all  parts  of  the  globe."  Nine  years  later  the 
Senate  and  President  Jackson  assented  to  the  same  princi- 
ple; and  President  Polk  carried  the  idea  into  execution  in 
the  treaty  with  New  Granada,  by  which  the  United  States 
agreed  to  guarantee  the  neutrality  of  the  Isthmus  of  Pana- 
ma so  that  a  canal  or  railroad  might  be  constructed  between 
the  two  seas,  and  the  Panama  route  be  "  open  to  all  nations 
on  the  same  terms."  '  There  were  three  passes  from  ocean 
to  ocean — the  Panama,  the  Nicaragua,  and  the  Tehuantepec ; 
and  it  was  deemed  practicable  to  build  a  railroad  or  canal 
by  any  one  of  them. 

When  Clayton  entered  upon  the  duties  of  the  State  De- 
partment, he  found  the  Nicaragua  route  demanding  imme- 
diate attention.  Two  companies  of  capitalists — one  British, 
one  American,  the  latter  headed  by  Commodore  Yanderbilt — 


1  Message  of  President  Polk  in  transmitting  the  treaty,  Congressional 
Globe,  vol.  xxvii.  p.  253. 


200  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1850 

were  each  endeavoring  to  get  a  grant  from  the  government 
of  Nicaragua  for  the  purpose  of  constructing  a  ship-canal, 
the  American  company  seeking  the  aid  of  their  own  govern- 
ment. The  commercial  question  was  complicated  by  a  dif- 
ference between  Nicaragua  and  the  British  government. 
Long  before  our  Kevolution,  England  had  a  settlement  at 
Balize,  in  the  Bay  of  Honduras,  and  assumed  a  protectorate 
over  the  Mosquito  Indians  who  occupied  a  strip  of  the  coast 
along  the  Caribbean  Sea.  It  was  claimed  by  England  that 
the  port  of  San  Juan  fell  within  the  limits  of  this  protec- 
torate, but  this  was  denied  by  Nicaragua.  In  January, 
1848,  two  British  ships  of  war  entered  the  San  Juan  Kiver, 
stormed  the  fort,  and  gained  possession  of  the  town. 

At  this  time,  owing  to  the  efforts  which  were  made  by  the 
rival  American  and  English  companies,  a  jealous  feeling  ex- 
isted on  the  part  of  both  of  "  these  great  maritime  powers," 
each  being  "  desirous  of  obtaining  some  exclusive  advantage 
to  itself  in  reference  to  the  opening  of  this  route  of  inter- 
oceanic  communication."  *  It  was  absolutely  necessary  that 
there  should  be  an  understanding  between  the  United  States 
and  Great  Britain,  and  a  treaty  was  concluded  April  19th  be- 
tween Clayton  and  Henry  Lytton  Bulwer,  the  British  Min- 
ister. 

The  purpose  of  the  convention  was  stated  to  be  "  for  fa- 
cilitating and  protecting  the  construction  of  a  ship-canal  be- 
tween the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  oceans"  by  the  Nicaragua 
route.  Both  governments  pledge  themselves  never  to  ob- 
tain exclusive  control  over  said  canal ;  never  to  erect  fortifi- 
cations commanding  the  same ;  and  not  to  colonize,  or  as- 
sume or  exercise  any  dominion  over,  Nicaragua,  Costa  Kica, 
the  Mosquito  coast  or  any  part  of  Central  America.  They 
agree  to  protect  the  company  that  shall  undertake  the  work, 
and  they  will  exert  the  influence  which  they  possess  with 
the  Central  American  governments  to  facilitate  its  construc- 
tion. The  United  States  and  Great  Britain  will  guarantee 


1  The  words  of  Edward  Everett,  Senate,  March  21st,  1853. 


Cam.]  THE  CLAYTON-BULWER  TREATY  201 

the  neutrality  and  security  of  the  canal  when  completed, 
so  long  as  no  unfair  discriminations  are  made  or  unreason- 
able tolls  exacted ;  and  they  invite  all  friendly  States  to 
enter  into  similar  stipulations  with  them,  as  the  great  de- 
sign of  this  convention  is  the  construction  and  mainte- 
nance of  a  ship -communication  between  the  two  oceans 
"for  the  benefit  of  mankind  on  equal  terms  to  all."  By  the 
eighth  article  of  the  treaty,  the  governments  of  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain  expressed  the  desire  not  only  "  to 
accomplish  a  particular  object,  but  to  establish  a  general 
principle,  and  they  agree  to  extend  their  protection  by  treaty 
stipulations  "  to  a  canal  or  railway  that  may  be  constructed 
by  the  way  of  Tehuantepec  or  Panama. 

Before  the  ratifications  of  the  treaty  were  exchanged,  Bul- 
wer  notified  Clayton  that  he  was  instructed  to  insist  on  an 
explanatory  declaration  that  the  stipulations  as  to  the  neu- 
tral territory  did  not  apply  to  Balize,  or,  as  it  was  more  fre- 
quently called,  British  Honduras.  Before  replying,  the  Sec- 
retary of  State  asked  William  K.  King,  who  was  chairman 
of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Kelations,  what  was  the  un- 
derstanding of  the  Senate  when  the  treaty  was  confirmed. 
King  wrote  that "  the  Senate  perfectly  understood  that  the 
treaty  did  not  include  British  Honduras."  *  Clayton  then  an- 
swered Bulwer  to  that  effect. 

The  treaty  was  ratified  in  the  Senate  by  a  vote  of  42  to 
10.  In  the  affirmative  may  be  found  the  names  of  "Webster, 
Clay,  Seward,  and  Cass,  each  of  whom,  at  some  portion  of 
his  life,  occupied  the  State  department,  and  three  of  whom 
are  renowned  for  their  diplomatic  achievements.  Seward 
and  Edward  Everett,  another  Secretary  of  State  and  ac- 
complished diplomat,  afterwards  defended  the  treaty  in  the 
Senate.9 

The  treaty  was  favorable  to  unrestricted  commercial  inter- 
course, and  was  in  line  with  our  traditional  policy.  Yet  it 
has  given  rise  to  many  disputed  questions,  for  the  United 


>  Seward's  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  385.        »  Jan.  10th  and  March  21st,  1853. 


202  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1850 

States  and  England  drew  a  different  meaning  from  several 
of  the  articles.  Less  than  three  years  after  its  conclusion 
its  provisions  were  severely  criticised  in  the  Senate;  and 
under  the  Pierce  and  Buchanan  administrations  it  became  a 
subject  of  controversy  with  England.  Although,  after  this, 
the  matter  slept  for  a  long  time,  it  was  revived  by  the  dis. 
cussion  which  grew  out  of  the  undertaking  of  the  French 
company  to  construct  a  canal  across  the  Isthmus  of  Panama, 
and  the  policy  of  our  government  in  making  such  a  treaty 
was  then  much  questioned.1 

The  Galphin  affair  has  been  referred  to,2  and  it  is  now 
time  to  give  an  account  of  it.  The  Galphin  claim  dated  back 
to  a  time  before  the  Kevolutionary  War,  and  was  originally 
on  the  colony  and  State  of  Georgia.  George  "W.  Crawford, 
the  Secretary  of  War  under  President  Taylor,  became  in  1835 
attorney  for  the  claimants,  with  a  contingent  fee  of  one-half 
of  the  claim,  and  he  urged  it  before  the  Georgia  legislature 
without  success.  It  afterwards  appears  as  a  claim  on  the 
United  States.  On  what  ground  it  was  turned  over  to  the 
general  government  is  irrelevant  to  my  narrative;  but  in 
the  hot  August  days  towards  the  end  of  the  Congressional 
session  of  1848  it  was  carried  through  the  House  during  an 


1  Treaties  and  Conventions,  Haswell,  p.  440 ;  International  Law  Digest, 
Wharton,  §150  f.  See  the  debate  in  the  Senate,  Jan.  and  March,  1853, 
especially  the  speeches  of  Seward,  Clayton,  and  Everett,  defending  the 
treaty;  the  speech  of  Douglas,  criticising  it;  and  the  remarks  of  Cass, 
censuring  Clayton  severely  for  his  "  unprecedented  error  "  in  coming  to 
an  understanding  with  Bulwer,  which  changed  the  construction  and 
"  vital  point "  of  the  treaty  without  the  knowledge  of  the  Senate.  Con- 
gressional Globe,  vols.  xxvi.  and  xxvii.;  Seward's  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  376.  See 
also  article  "  British  Honduras,"  Encyclopaedia  Britannica.  For  the  am- 
biguity in  the  construction  of  the  treaty,  see  Curtis's  Life  of  Webster,  vol. 
ii.,  and  Life  of  Buchanan,  by  same  author;  see  Buchanan's  message,  Dec. 
3d,  1860.  Appendix  to  Congressional  Glofo,pA',  also  article  "Treaties," 
in  Lalor's  Cyclopaedia  of  Political  Science,  by  J.  Bancroft  Davis ;  and 
diplomatic  correspondence  between  Secretary  Blaine  and  Lord  Granville 
in  1881,  and  between  Secretary  Frelinghuysen  and  Granville  in  1882  and 
1883.  a  See  p.  176. 


CH.IH.]  THE   GALPHIN  CLAIM  203 

exhausting  night  sitting,  unnoticed  and  without  a  word  of 
discussion.  This  order,  which  became  a  law,  directed  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  "  to  examine  and  adjust  the  claim 
of  the  late  George  Galphin, .  .  .  and  to  pay  the  amount  which 
may  be  found  due."  In  the  closing  days  of  the  Polk  admin- 
istration, Crawford  received  $43,518.97,  this  being  the  prin- 
cipal of  the  claim ;  but  no  interest  was  allowed,  although  the 
demand  for  it  had  been  made.  After  Crawford  became  Sec- 
retary of  "War,  his  client  requested  him  to  prosecute  the 
claim  for  interest.  Crawford's  name  now  disappears  from 
the  record  as  attorney,  but  the  affair  was  pressed  with  such 
vigor  that  the  demand  for  back  interest  was  submitted  by 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  the  comptroller,  a  man  of 
large  business  experience  and  sound  judgment,  by  whom  it 
was  disallowed.  The  question  was  then  put  to  the  Attor- 
ney-General whether  the  law  of  1848  did  not  require  the 
payment  of  interest.  The  answer  was  yes ;  whereupon,  al- 
though Congress  was  in  session,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury paid  the  claimant  interest  from  May  2d,  1775,  amounting 
to  $191,352.89,  of  which  the  attorney  of  record  received 
$3000,  and  George  W.  Crawford  one  half  the  remainder,  or 
$94,176.44. 

When  this  fact  became  known  there  was  severe  comment 
on  it  by  the  press,  in  which  the  New  York  Tribune,  a  Whig 
and  administration  journal,  joined.1  This  prompted  Craw- 
ford to  demand  an  investigation  from  the  House,  and  a  com- 
mittee was  appointed,  who  reported  that  the  payment  of  in- 
terest was  not  "in  conformity  with  law  and  precedent." 
From  the  evidence  it  appeared  that  Crawford  had  made  a  par- 
tial statement  of  the  matter  to  the  President,  who  saw  noth- 


1  "Thoughtlessness  has  brought  the  administration  into  a  strait  from 
which  they  cannot  escape  with  honor  and  safety  without  the  resignation 
of  at  least  the  Secretary  of  War  and  the  Attorney-General,  if  not  also  of 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury;  $192,000  of  interest  allowed  contrary  to 
settled  custom,  and  nearly  half  of  it  going  into  the  hands  of  the  Secretary 
of  War,  makes  a  startling  case !" — Seward  to  Weed,  April  1st,  1850,  Life 
of  Seward,  vol.  ii.  p.  130. 


204  TAYLOR'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1850 

ing  inconsistent  between  his  cabinet  position  and  his  share 
in  the  claim.  Crawford  testified  that  he  had  never  told  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  or  the  Attorney-General  of  his 
connection  with  the  business,  but  that  he  had  urged  them  to 
make  a  prompt  disposition  of  the  case.  Meredith  and  John- 
son *  denied  that  they  had  any  knowledge  of  Crawford's 
interest,  thereby  demonstrating  that  their  examination  of 
the  papers  on  file  was  cursory,  since  these  plainly  showed 
that  he  was  acting  in  the  affair.  Even  from  such  a  brief 
relation,  it  will  be  seen  that  this  was  an  administration  scan- 
dal of  no  mean  proportions.  It  would  have  attracted  much 
greater  attention  had  the  slavery  question  not  so  absorbed 
Congress,  but,  nevertheless,  the  relation  of  the  cabinet  min- 
isters to  the  affair  was  a  subject  of  severe  animadversion  in 
the  House.  On  the  day  of  General  Taylor's  death  this  body 
was  considering  a  resolution  which  dissented  from  the  opin- 
ion of  the  Attorney-General,  disapproved  of  the  action  of 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  reflected  severely  on  the 
relation  of  the  Secretary  of  War  to  the  matter  as  being 
an  improper  and  dangerous  precedent,  and  implied  a  cen- 
sure of  the  President  for  the  opinion  he  had  given  Craw- 
ford ;  but  during  the  discussion  the  news  was  received  that 
the  condition  of  the  President  was  so  critical  that  he  could 
not  survive  an  hour,  and  it  therefore  adjourned.  After  his 
death  and  the  appointment  of  a  new  cabinet,  the  subject 
ceased  to  attract  attention.  The  affair,  however,  was  the 
greatest  trouble  General  Taylor  had  during  his  short  term 
of  office.  It  was  charged  in  the  House  that  Crawford  had 
plundered  the  public  treasury,  and  that  the  President  and 
other  members  of  the  cabinet  had  "connived  at  and  sanc- 
tioned the  enormous  allowance."  General  Taylor,  in  money 
affairs,  was  strictly  honest;3  in  fact,  he  was  very  sensitive 
on  that  point,  and  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  his  death- 
bed was  disturbed  by  reflections  on  the  indiscretion  or  dis- 


1  The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  and  the  Attorney-General. 
»  Scott's  Autobiography,  vol.  ii.  p.  390. 


CH.IIL]  THE  HULSEMANN  LETTER  205 

honesty  of  his  chosen  advisers.1  General  Taylor  did  not 
understand  the  matter  fully :  he  either  supposed  that  the 
claim  for  interest  would  come  before  Congress,  or  he  was 
too  confiding  to  suspect  that  Crawford  suppressed  a  part  of 
the  story  to  obtain  his  approval.  But  before  his  death  he 
comprehended  the  situation,  and  was  on  the  point  of  mak- 
ing those  changes  in  his  cabinet  which  the  affair  impera- 
tively demanded.2 

The  diplomatic  history  of  this  year  would  not  be  com- 
plete without  a  notice  of  the  Hiilsemann  letter,  the  most 
striking  of  all  of  Webster's  state  papers  while  he  was  con- 
nected with  the  Fillmore  administration.  During  the  prog- 
ress of  the  Hungarian  revolution,  under  the  leading  of  Louis 
Kossuth,  President  Taylor  sent  a  special  agent  to  Europe  to 
watch  and  report  upon  the  progress  of  events,  with  a  possi- 
ble view  to  the  recognition  of  Hungary.  This,  coming  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  Austrian  government,  caused  offence,  and 
there  ensued  between  the  two  countries  a  correspondence 
which  was  still  pending  when  Webster  became  Secretary 
of  State.  In  September,  Hiilsemann,  the  Austrian  chargb 
d'affaires  sent  a  haughty  and  dictatorial  letter.  The  re- 
ception of  such  a  missive  proved  a  lucky  chance  for  an 
American  Secretary  of  State  gifted  with  rare  command  of 
language ;  it  paved  the  way  for  a  declaration  of  sentiments 
that  have  ever  a  zealous  response  from  the  American  heart. 
Webster's  reasoning  was  a  complete  refutation  of  the  posi- 
tion Hiilsemann  had  taken.  He  earnestly  defended  our  right 
to  view  with  great  interest  "the  extraordinary  events" 
which  have  occurred  not  only  in  Austria,  but  "in  many 
other  parts  of  Europe  since  February,  1848."  But  the  Sec- 
retary goes  further,  "  and  freely  admits  that  in  proportion 
as  these  extraordinary  events  appeared  to  have  their  origin 


1  See  p.  176. 

*  Autobiography  of  Thurlow  Weed,  p.  589.  I  have  made  up  this  ac- 
count from  the  three  reports  of  the  House  committee,  and  the  debate  on 
them  in  the  House. 


206  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1850 

in  those  great  ideas  of  responsible  and  popular  governments 
on  which  the  American  constitutions  themselves  are  wholly 
founded,  they  could  not  but  command  the  warm  sympathy 
of  the  people  of  this  country.  .  .  .  The  power  of  this  repub- 
lic, at  the  present  moment,  is  spread  over  a  region,  one  of 
the  richest  and  most  fertile  on  the  globe,  and  of  an  extent 
in  comparison  with  which  the  possessions  of  the  House  of 
Hapsburg  are  but  as  a  patch  on  the  earth's  surface."  Then 
follow  well-chosen  words  depicting  our  present  and  increas- 
ing population,  our  navigation  and  commerce,  our  protec- 
tion to  life,  liberty,  property,  and  personal  rights.  "  Never- 
theless, the  United  States  have  abstained,  at  all  times,  from 
acts  of  interference  with  the  political  changes  of  Europe. 
They  cannot,  however,  fail  to  cherish  always  a  lively  inter- 
est in  the  fortunes  of  nations  struggling  for  institutions  like 
their  own."  The  style,  while  not  of  the  "spread-eagle" 
character,  approaches  it  as  closely  as  dignity  and  good  taste 
would  allow.  Webster  himself  thought  the  letter  "  boastful 
and  rough,"  but  one  of  his  excuses  was  that  he  wished  to 
"touch  the  national  pride  and  make  a  man  feel  sheepish 
and  look  silly  who  should  speak  of  disunion."  *  The  letter 
was  received  with  great  enthusiasm  in  the  Senate,  the  sen- 
timents being  cordially  endorsed  by  both  parties;  and  al- 
though hardly  more  than  a  stump-speech  under  diplomatic 
guise,  it  received  commendation  among  liberal  circles  in 
England.9 

The  President,  in  his  message  to  Congress  on  their  re- 
assembling in  December,  praised  highly  the  compromise.  It 
was,  however,  true  that  the  beneficent  purpose  of  this  series 
of  measures  had  not  yet  been  wholly  realized.  "  It  would  be 
strange,"  he  said,  "  if  they  had  been  received  with  immedi- 
ate approbation  by  people  and  States  prejudiced  and  heated 
by  the  exciting  controversies  of  their  representatives.  I  be- 
lieve those  measures  to  have  been  required  by  the  circum- 
stances and  condition  of  the  country.  .  .  .  They  were  adopted 


»  Curtis,  vol.  ii  p.  537.  «  WtitmiiMter  Revfaff,  Jan.,  1853. 


CH.  HI.]  THE  FINALITY  OF  THE  COMPROMISE  207 

in  the  spirit  of  conciliation  and  for  the  purpose  of  concil- 
iation. I  believe  that  a  great  majority  of  our  fellow-citi- 
zens sympathize  in  that  spirit  and  purpose,  and  in  the  main 
approve,  and  are  prepared,  in  all  respects,  to  sustain,  these 
enactments." 

In  January,  1851,  a  pledge  was  signed  by  several  mem- 
bers of  Congress  which  declared  that  they  would  not  sup- 
port for  any  office  whatever  any  man  "  who  is  not  known 
to  be  opposed  to  the  disturbance  of  the  settlement,  and  to 
the  renewal,  in  any  form,  of  agitation  upon  the  subject  of 
slavery."  This  had  ten  signatures  from  the  free  States 
and  thirty-four  from  the  slave  States ;  among  the  latter  were 
the  names  of  Clay,  Howell  Cobb,  the  speaker  of  the  House, 
Alexander  H.  Stephens,  and  Kobert  Toombs.  The  Presi- 
dent in  his  message  made  a  fair  and  intelligent  statement 
of  the  public  sentiment  on  the  compromise  prevailing  at 
the  North  in  the  early  months  of  the  new  year.  The 
Northern  Democrats,  with  the  exception  of  a  diminishing 
number  of  Free-soilers,  unreservedly  accepted  the  adjust- 
ment, and  so  did  the  Webster  and  Fillmore  "Whigs.  The 
Seward  Whigs  took  the  position  that  these  measures  were 
the  law  of  the  land ;  that  whatever  in  them  was  irrepeala- 
ble  no  one  would  be  mad  enough  "  to  attempt  to  repeal ;"  * 
and  that  the  Fugitive  Slave  law  demanded  obedience,  but 
that  it  ought  to  be  abrogated.  The  abolitionists,  who  may 
be  defined  as  those  who  determined  to  agitate  the  question 
not  only  until  the  extension  of  slavery  should  be  restricted, 
but  until  it  was  abolished  in  the  States,  did  not  accept  the 
compromise,  and  sympathized  with  resistance  to  the  Fugitive 
Slave  law.  The  Concord  philosopher,  who  was  esteemed  a 
moderate  abolitionist,  plainly  expressed  the  sentiment  of 
these  people:  "The  act  of  Congress  of  September  18th, 
1850,  is  a  law  which  every  one  of  you  will  break  on  the 
earliest  occasion — a  law  which  no  man  can  obey,  or  abet  the 
obeying,  without  loss  of  self-respect  and  forfeiture  of  the 


Letter  of  Seward,  Works,  vol.  iii.  p.  448. 


208  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1851 

name  of  a  gentleman." 1  Nothing  better  illustrates  the  dif- 
ference between  the  position  of  the  anti-slavery  statesman 
and  the  agitator  than  certain  corrections  made  by  Sumner 
in  an  article  on  slavery  written  by  Theodore  Parker  for  the 
use  of  a  Massachusetts  legislative  committee.  The  additions 
of  Sumner  are  the  words  in  brackets.  "We  regard  the 
Fugitive  Slave  law  as  morally  [not  legally,  but  morally]  in- 
valid and  void;  and  [though  binding  on  the  conduct]  no 
more  binding  on  the  conscience  of  any  man  than  a  law 
would  be  which  should  command  the  people  to  enslave  all 
the  tall  men  or  all  the  short  men,  and  deliver  them  up  on 
claims  to  be  held  in  bondage  forever."  * 

The  Fugitive  Slave  law  did  not  work  as  smoothly  as  its 
supporters  wished ;  and  while  Clay  maintained  that  it  had 
been  executed  in  Indiana,  Ohio,  Pennsylvania,  in  New  York 
City,  and,  in  fact,  everywhere  except  in  Boston,  other  sena- 
tors from  the  South  declared  that  its  operation  left  much  to 
be  desired.  Not  only  had  two  runaway  negroes  been  spirited 
away  from  Boston  to  England,  but  Mason,  of  Virginia,  told 
of  what  happened  to  a  neighbor  who  had  pursued  two  slaves 
to  Harrisburg,  Pa.,  where  he  had  had  them  arrested.  The 
owner  finally  recovered  his  propert}',  but  only  after  a  te- 
dious delay  of  two  months,  during  which  time  he  and  his 


1  Life  of  Emerson,  Cabot,  p.  578,  Emerson's  address  at  Concord,  May 
3d,  1851.  "  Cette  loi  [the  Fugitive  Slave  law]  est  en  ce  moment  la  pierre 
d'achoppement  contre  laquelle  le  compromia  est  toujours  pres  de  se 
briser." — Promenade  en  Ame'rique,  Ampere,  tome  i.  p.  408. 
,  •  The  book  referred  to,  containing  this  essay,  was  Parker's  own,  and  is 
in  the  Boston  Public  Library.  In  Parker's  own  pencil  handwriting  on 
the  margin  I  find :  "  these  in  [  ]  added  by  Sumner."  The  article  was 
written  March,  1851.  I  take  this  opportunity  of  saying  that  in  the  prep- 
aration of  this  work  I  have  used  freely  the  Boston  Public  Library,  the 
Athenaeum,  the  College  Library  of  Harvard  University,  the  Astor  Library 
of  New  York,  the  Congressional  Library  of  Washington,  the  Case  and 
Public  Libraries  and  the  library  of  the  Historical  Society  of  Cleveland. 
I  desire  to  recognize  the  intelligent  aid  of  Mr.  Brett,  the  librarian  of  the 
Public  Library  of  Cleveland,  and  to  acknowledge  my  indebtedness  to  Mr, 
Frederic  Bancroft,  the  librarian  of  the  Department  of  State. 


CH.IIL]  THE  FUGITIVE  SLAVE  LAW  209 

companions  were  put  in  prison  and  subjected  to  a  trial  for 
riot.  The  expenses  of  the  Virginian  in  this  affair  were  four- 
teen hundred  and  fifty  dollars,  and  when  he  carried  his 
slaves  home  he  sold  the  two  for  fifteen  hundred  dollars.1 
Only  after  litigation  of  ten  days  or  a  fortnight  had  a  fugi- 
tive been  reclaimed  in  New  York  City ;  the  slave  was  car- 
ried home  and  sold,  but  the  proceeds  of  the  sale  barely  met 
the  expenses,  although  Mason  had  heard  it  stated  that  a 
committee  of  citizens  in  New  York  had  actually  contributed 
five  hundred  dollars  to  the  owner.3  In  Ohio,  the  Senator 
had  heard  of  one  case  where  the  fugitive  was  easily  recov- 
ered, but  that  was  a  woman  who  confessed  to  being  a  slave, 
and  was  of  course  sent  back.  In  Detroit,  Mich.,  a  runa- 
way negro  was  reclaimed,  but  a  mob  had  gathered,  and 
only  after  the  military  were  called  out  did  the  undertaking 
succeed.  Although,  according  to  trustworthy  estimates, 
there  were  fifteen  thousand  fugitives  in  the  free  States,  an- 
other Southern  senator  complained  that  only  four  or  five 
had  been  recaptured  under  the  law  of  September,  1850. 

This  interesting  discussion  in  the  Senate  was  prompted 
by  a  noteworthy  affair  which  had  just  taken  place  in  Bos- 
ton. On  the  15th  of  February  a  negro  by  the  name  of 
Shadrach,  employed  in  the  Cornhill  coffee-house,  was  ar- 
rested on  the  charge  of  having  escaped  the  previous  May. 
As  the  counsel  of  the  fugitive,  when  he  was  brought 
before  the  commissioner,  George  Ticknor  Curtis,  were  un- 
prepared, the  proceedings  were  adjourned  for  three  days. 
Under  the  law  of  Massachusetts  her  jails  could  not  be  used 
for  the  imprisonment  of  fugitive  slaves,  and  as  Shadrach 
had  been  remanded  to  the  custody  of  the  deputy  marshal, 


1  Clay  mentioned  to  Mason  that  the  comptroller  had  just  passed  an 
account  in  which  twelve  hundred  or  thirteen  hundred  dollars  were  al- 
lowed to  the  marshal  for  carrying  back  the  fugitive  slaves  in  that  case. 

3  Senator  Dickinson,  of  New  York,  assured  Mason  that  the  expenses  of 
the  claimant  in  this  case  were  entirely  paid  by  the  citizens  of  New  York 
City. 

L— 14 


210  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1851 

he  was  detained  in  the  United  States  court- room  in  the 
court-house,  situated  in  the  heart  of  the  city.  A  mob 
of  colored  men  broke  into  the  room  and  carried  off  the 
alleged  fugitive,  who  soon  escaped  to  Canada,  beyond  the 
clutches  of  the  United  States  law,  and,  owing  to  the  time- 
honored  decision  of  Lord  Mansfield,  became  a  freeman. 
When  Theodore  Parker  heard  of  the  arrest  he  went  im- 
mediately down  to  Court  Square,  intending  to  help  in  the 
rescue,  but  the  act  had  been  accomplished  before  he  ar- 
rived. He  writes  in  his  journal :  "  This  Shadrach  is  de- 
livered out  of  his  burning,  fiery  furnace  without  the  smell 
of  fire  on  his  garments.  ...  I  think  it  is  the  most  noble 
deed  done  in  Boston  since  the  destruction  of  the  tea  in 
1773."  This  rescue  created  a  great  deal  of  excitement, 
and  nowhere  more  than  among  the  law-givers  at  Washing- 
ton. The  President  immediately  issued  a  proclamation 
which  appealed  in  the  usual  terms  to  all  good  citizens,  and 
commanded  all  civil  and  military  officers  to  assist  in  putting 
down  any  combinations  whose  purpose  was  to  resist  the  law, 
and  to  aid  in  the  arrest  of  those  who  had  set  the  law  at  de- 
fiance. No  practical  result  came  from  the  energetic  action 
of  the  administration.  Five  of  the  rescuers  were  indicted 
and  tried,  but,  as  the  jury  could  not  agree,  they  were  not  con- 
victed. The  incident  demonstrated  that  in  Massachusetts  the 
Fugitive  Slave  law  would  only  be  enforced  with  difficulty. 
Undoubtedly  the  vast  majority  of  the  citizens  of  Boston  had 
a  passive,  if  not  an  active,  sympathy  with  the  officers  of  the 
government ;  but  every  one  well  understood  that  back  of 
this  negro  mob  which  rescued  Shadrach  was  a  vigilance 
committee  composed  of  men  of  influence  and  good  position. 
This  committee  had  an  efficient  organization,  and  aimed  to 
prevent  the  arrest  of  fugitives,  or,  when  they  were  seized,  to 
give  them  legal  aid  and  interpose  every  lawful  obstacle  to 
their  rendition.1 


1  This  account  I  have  made  up  from  the  debate  in  the  Senate  on  the 
subject  in  Feb.,1851 ;  from  the  Life  of  Webster,  by  Curtis ;  Rise  and  Fall  of 


CH.III.]  THE   ARREST   OF  THOMAS  SIMS  211 

Yet  law  in  Boston  was  clothed  with  majesty,  and  the 
majority  of  the  citizens  felt  that  even  an  unjust  law  were 
better  executed  than  resisted.  The  board  of  aldermen,  with 
praiseworthy  motives,  directed  that  the  mayor  and  city 
marshal  should  use  the  police  force  most  energetically  in 
support  of  the  law  and  maintenance  of  the  public  peace.  On 
the  3d  of  April  the  city  police,  on  a  warrant  issued  by  com- 
missioner Curtis,  arrested  Thomas  Sims,  a  slave  who  had 
escaped  from  a  Georgia  owner,  and  confined  him  in  the 
court-house.  Fearing  an  attempt  at  rescue,  a  strong  guard 
was  set  and  the  court-house  surrounded  with  heavy  chains. 
The  fugitive  had  good  volunteer  counsel,  but  the  case  was 
plain.  He  was  adjudged  to  the  claimant,  and  the  Shadrach 
affair  had  so  excited  apprehension  that  he  was  taken  from 
his  place  of  imprisonment  at  five  o'clock  in  the  morning, 
escorted  by  three  hundred  police  disposed  in  hollow  square 
around  him.  The  militia  were  under  arms  in  Faneuil  Hall, 
but  they  were  not  needed,  as  the  police  met  not  the  slightest 
resistance.  The  negro  was  safely  put  on  board  a  vessel  which 
took  him  to  Savannah.1 

Since  the  Revolutionary  War  not  a  slave  had  been  sent 
back  from  Boston  by  legal  process,2  and  this  rendition  caused 
intense  feeling.  On  the  day  of  the  arrest  a  meeting  was 
held  on  the  Common,  where  Wendell  Phillips  spoke ;  in  the 
evening  Theodore  Parker  addressed  a  gathering  at  Tremont 
Temple.  Five  days  later,  a  convention  met  at  the  latter 
place,  presided  over  by  Horace  Mann,  who  alluded  in  scath- 
ing words  to  the  fact  that  Faneuil  Hall  had  been  denied 


the  Slave  Power,  Wilson ;  and  Life  and  Correspondence  of  Theodore 
Parker,  Weiss.  Parker  and  Phillips  were  members  of  this  vigilance  com- 
mittee. For  other  members,  and  an  account  of  it,  see  Life  of  Parker, 
Frothingham,  p.  401. 

1  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power,  vol.ii. ;  Life  of  Theodore  Parker, 
vol.  ii.  The  placard  given  on  following  page,  which  was  posted  at  all 
corners  by  the  vigilance  committee,  is  an  illustration  of  their  manner  of 
work.  See  Life  of  Parker,  Weiss,  vol.  ii.  p.  104. 

8  Life  of  Parker,  vol.  ii.  p.  107. 


212  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1851 

them.  "  But  then  there  is  a  melancholy  propriety  in  this," 
he  said;  "  when  the  court-house  is  in  chains, Faneuil  Hall  may 
well  be  dumb."  Among  the  speakers  were  Henry  Wilson 
and  Thomas  W.  Higginson,  and  another  assemblage  was  ad- 
dressed by  William  Lloyd  Garrison.  The  burden  of  all  these 
meetings  was  a  protest  against  the  Fugitive  Slave  law  and 
severe  denunciation  of  all  who  were  concerned  in  the  arrest 


PROCLAMATION!! 

TO  ALL 

THE  GOOD  PEOPLE  OF  MASSACHUSETTS  I 

Be  it  known  that  there  are  now 
THREE  SLAVE-HUNTERS  OR  KIDNAPPERS 

IN  BOSTON 

Looking  for  their  prey.    One  of  them  is  called 

"DAVIS." 

He  is  an  unusually  ill-looking  fellow,  about  five  feet  eight  inches  high, 
wide-shouldered.  He  has  a  big  mouth,  black  hair,  and  a  good  deal 
of  dirty  bushy  hair  on  the  lower  part  of  his  face.  He  has  a  Roman 
nose ;  one  of  his  eyes  has  been  knocked  out.  He  looks  like  a  Pirate, 
and  knows  how  to  be  a  Stealer  of  Men. 

The  next  is  called 
EDWARD   BARRETT. 

He  is  about  five  feet  six  inches  high,  thin  and  lank,  is  apparently 
about  thirty  years  old.  His  nose  turns  up  a  little.  He  has  a  long 
mouth,  long  thin  ears,  and  dark  eyes.  His  hair  is  dark,  and  he  has  a 
bunch  of  fur  on  his  chin.  He  had  on  a  blue  frock-coat,  with  a  velvet 
collar,  mixed  pants,  and  a  figured  vest.  He  wears  his  shirt  collar 
turned  down,  and  has  a  black  string — not  of  hemp — about  his  neck. 

The  third  ruffian  is  named 

ROBERT  M.  BACON,  alias  JOHN  D.  BACON. 
He  is  about  fifty  years  old,  five  feet  and  a  half  high.     He  has  a  red, 
intemperate-looking  face,  and  a  retreating  forehead.     His  hair  is  dark, 
and  a  little  gray.     He  wears  a  black  coat,  mixed  pants,  and  a  purplish 
vest.    He  looks  sleepy,  and  yet  malicious. 

Given  at  Boston,  this  4th  day  of  April,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord,  1851, 
and  of  the  Independence  of  the  United  States  the  seventy-fifth 

Ood  save  the  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts  ! 


CH.IIL]  ALLEN'S  ATTACK  ON  WEBSTER  213 

and  surrender  of  Sims.    On  the  day  that  the  fugitive  was 
delivered  over  to  his  claimant  funeral  bells  were  tolled. 

But  Faneuil  Hall  was  not  closed  only  against  the  aboli- 
tionists. In  this  same  month  of  April,  the  board  of  alder- 
men refused  the  use  of  it  to  many  Whig  and  Democratic 
citizens  of  Boston  who  wished  to  unite  in  a  public  reception 
to  Webster,  then  at  Marshfield.  The  excuse  made  was  that 
since  the  hall  had  been  denied  to  Wendell  Phillips  and  his 
associates,  it  could  not  consistently  be  opened  for  a  meeting 
on  the  other  side  which  purposed  approval  of  the  compro- 
mise measures ;  but  every  one  understood  the  action  to  be  a 
reflection  on  Webster's  course  for  the  past  year.  This  awoke 
a  storm  of  indignation  that  was  not  lessened  by  the  dignified 
and  manly  way  in  which  the  Secretary  of  State  met  the  oc- 
casion. Afterwards  the  common  council  offered  him  the  use  of 
Faneuil  Hall,  but  this  he  declined  in  a  courteous  manner,  add- 
ing that  he  should  not  "  enter  Faneuil  Hall  till  its  gates  shall 
be  thrown  open,  wide  open,  <  not  with  impetuous  recoil,  grat- 
ing harsh  thunder,'  but  with  '  harmonious  sound  on  golden, 
hinges  moving,'  to  let  in  freely  and  to  overflowing  ...  all 
men  of  all  parties  who  are  true  to  the  Union  as  well  as  to 
liberty." 

Webster's  path  for  the  last  year  had  indeed  been  among 
the  thorns  of  the  world.  In  February  a  severe  attack 
was  made  in  the  House  upon  his  private  character  by  Al- 
len, a  Free-soil  member  from  the  Worcester,  Mass.,  dis- 
trict. While  the  slander  was  at  bottom  prompted  by  par- 
tisan motives,  yet  the  bit  of  truth  in  it  stung  Webster  to  the 
very  depth  of  his  honest  soul.  The  point  under  discussion 
was  the  appropriation  of  the  money  for  the  last  instalment 
of  the  indemnity  due  Mexico  under  the  treaty  of  1848, 
amounting  to  more  than  $3,000,000,  due  in  May,  1852.  The 
Secretary  of  State  had  contracted  with  a  syndicate  of  bank- 
ers of  Boston,  New  York,  and  Washington  for  the  payment 
and  transfer  of  this,  as  well  as  the  previous  instalment,  to 
Mexico.  These  bankers  paid  three  and  one  half  per  cent, 
premium  for  the  privilege.  It  was  shown  during  the  discus- 


214  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1851 

sion  that  four  per  cent,  premium  might  have  been  obtained 
from  the  Kothschilds,  so  that  the  government  had  not  done 
as  well  by  about  $30,000  as  it  might  have  done.  This  gave 
Allen  an  opportunity  to  object  decidedly  to  the  Secretary  of 
State  having  anything  to  do  with  the  pecuniary  concerns  of 
the  government,  because  he  held  his  place  "  less  as  a  servant 
and  stipendiary  of  the  government  than  a  servant  and  sti- 
pendiary of  bankers  and  brokers."  Allen  said  there  was 
undoubted  authority  for  the  statement  that  when  the  Presi- 
dent offered  Webster  the  position  of  Secretary  of  State  he 
wrote  to  Boston  to  know  what  would  be  done  for  him  in  a 
financial  way.  An  arrangement  had  then  been  made  with 
the  bankers  and  brokers  of  Boston  and  New  York  by  which 
$25,000  should  be  raised  for  him  in  each  city  as  a  compensa- 
tion for  taking  the  position  in  the  cabinet ;  that  the  amount 
was  collected  in  New  York,  but  that  it  fell  somewhat  short 
in  Boston,  for  "  gentlemen  in  Boston  had  bled  so  freely  on 
former  occasions  of  a  similar  character  that  it  was  difficult 
to  raise  the  full  amount."  In  fact,  Allen  continued,  our  Sec- 
retary of  State  was  the  pensioner  of  Wall  Street  and  State 
Street,  and  this  lucrative  contract  with  these  bankers  gave 
them  a  chance  to  recoup  themselves  at  the  government's 
cost.  This  charge  was  baseless,  and  it  was  felt  on  all  sides 
of  the  House  to  be  a  shameful  one.  Although  neither  Web- 
ster himself  nor  his  friends  interposed  any  obstacle  to  a  full 
inquiry  into  the  matter,  the  House,  by  the  overwhelming 
vote  of  119  to  35,  refused  to  consider  a  resolution  providing 
for  the  appointment  of  a  committee  of  investigation,  and 
passed  the  appropriation,  which,  however,  for  want  of  time, 
failed  in  the  Senate.  At  the  next  session  all  amendments 
putting  any  limitations  on  the  administration  as  to  the  man- 
ner of  payment  were  rejected,  and  the  appropriation  pure 
and  simple  passed  both  Houses.  This  completely  vindicated 
Webster.  The  bit  of  truth  in  the  scandal  was  the  fact  that, 
some  weeks  after  he  had  taken  the  position  of  Secretary  of 
State,  a  sum  of  money  for  the  extraordinary  expenses  of  his 
table  was  presented  him  by  some  men  from  Boston;  but 


Cn.m.]  REDUCTION  OF  RATES  OF  POSTAGE  215 

most  of  those  who  joined  in  the  subscription  were  gentlemen 
retired  from  affairs,  only  two  of  them  being  bankers,  and 
Webster  did  not  know  the  name  or  position  of  any  one  of 
the  subscribers.  Allen's  charge,  however,  was  so  positive 
and  direct  that  it  lived  in  brass,  while  the  denial  was  written 
in  water.1  Any  one  who  understood  Webster  knew  that  he 
was  incapable  of  making  a  sordid  bargain  with  his  moneyed 
friends  for  accepting  a  cabinet  position.  In  fact,  lack  of 
thrift  and  no  knack  at  bargaining  brought  him  into  this  and 
other  trouble.  This  charge  has  here  been  baldly  stated,  for 
one  who  takes  up  the  cudgels  for  Webster  need  not  suppress 
any  fact.  Unquestionably  many  people  will  consider  it  a 
surprising  naivete  of  judgment  to  assert  that  Webster  was 
honest  at  heart.  But  if  we  can  only  view  his  failing  with 
the  same  charity  which  we  every  day  employ  in  judging  our 
acquaintances  and  our  friends,  we  shall  have  a  complete  key 
to  his  conduct  in  affairs.  Do  we  not  all  know  men — men 
in  the  noblest  professions — who,  though  morally  sound,  lack 
thrift,  and  who  are  continually  in  trouble  on  this  account-? 
But  we  make  excuses  for  them;  knowing  them  through 
and  through,  we  do  not  say  that  their  hearts  are  rotten. 
If  we  judge  Webster  with  like  charity,  we  shall  arrive  at  a 
similar  conclusion. 

In  the  history  of  the  decade  between  1850  and  1860  the 
overpowering  question  is  slavery,  and  to  that  must  our  at- 
tention chiefly  be  directed.  Yet  it  is  a  gratification  for 
the  historian  to  record  that  though  the  public  mind  was  so 
fully  engrossed  with  this  one  idea,  legislators  still  found  time 
to  enact  measures  that  were  in  the  line  of  material  progress. 
There  has  been  so  much  descant  on  the  commercial,  social, 
and  intellectual  benefits  of  cheap  postage  that  in  civilized 


1  For  the  charge  of  Allen,  see  Congressional  Globe,  vol.  xxiii.  pp.  686, 
696,  vol.  xxiv.  p.  371  et  seq.  For  the  defence,  see  Ashmun's  remarks,  vol. 
xxiii.  pp.  687,  697 ;  Davis's  remarks,  vol.  xxiv.  p.  373 ;  Franklin  Haven's 
letter  to  Boston  Transcript  of  May  17th,  1851,  ibid.,  p.  375;  Curtis,  voL 
ii.  p.  492  et  seq.  The  salary  of  the  Secretary  of  State  was  then  $6000. 


216  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1851 

countries  it  has  become  a  governmental  axiom  that  the  in- 
crease in  the  revenue  of  the  post-office  department  and  the 
decline  of  rates  of  postage  is  a  true  mark  of  growth  in  civ- 
ilization. The  Congress  which  adjourned  March  3d,  1851, 
took  a  step  in  this  direction.  The  rates  of  postage  at  the 
organization  of  the  post-office  department  were,  for  a  single 
letter  (that  is,  a  single  piece  of  paper),  from  eight  to  twenty- 
five  cents,  according  to  the  distance,  with  a  minimum  distance 
of  forty  miles  and  a  maximum  of  five  hundred.  These  charges 
had  been  twice  reduced,  and  on  the  opening  of  this  session  of 
Congress  the  postage  for  a  letter  not  exceeding  one-half  ounce 
in  weight  was  five  cents  under  three  hundred  miles ;  over  three 
hundred  miles,  ten  cents ;  and  to  the  Pacific  territories,  via 
Panama,  forty  cents.  The  revenues  of  the  Postmaster-Gen- 
eral's department  exceeding  the  expenditures,  he  therefore 
recommended  a  reduction  in  the  inland  letter  postage  to 
three  cents.  The  President  concurred  in  this  recommenda- 
tion, and  the  subject  was  soon  taken  up  by  Congress.  That 
body  appreciated  that  the  rapid  extension  of  steam  trans- 
portation for  the  past  two  years,  with  the  abundant  prom- 
ise of  further  progress  in  that  direction,  was  certain  to  result 
in  a  great  reduction  in  the  cost  of  the  service.  It  was  stated 
during  the  discussion  that,  while  ten  cents  was  the  postage 
on  a  letter  from  Detroit  to  Buffalo,  a  barrel  of  flour  was 
carried  between  the  two  cities  on  the  same  conveyance  for 
the  same  money.1  The  bill  which  passed  Congress  made 
the  rate  for  a  prepaid  letter,  not  weighing  over  half  an  ounce, 
three  cents  for  under  three  thousand  miles ;  six  cents  for  over 
that  distance. 

The  most  exciting  event  of  the  summer  was  the  expedi- 
tion to  Cuba  under  the  lead  of  Lopez.  This  adventurer  had 
engaged  in  two  unsuccessful  attempts  to  give  freedom  to 
his  adopted  country,  and  with  dauntless  spirit  was  ready 
to  head  another  enterprise.  He  fell  in  with  a  clique  of 


1  That  is,  by  steamboat.    There  was  then  no  railroad  between  Buffalo 
and  Detroit. 


CH.HI.]  THE  LOPEZ  EXPEDITION  217 

speculators  at  New  Orleans,  who  cherished  wild  dreams  of 
magnificence  and  wealth  which  the  expected  easy  conquest 
of  Cuba  would  realize.  These  men  were  willing  to  risk 
their  money,  though  not  their  lives,  and  in  Lopez  they  found 
a  ready  instrument.  He,  in  fact,  was  only  too  glad  to  meet 
persons  who  would  back  with  money  his  visionary  schemes. 
Cuban  bonds  were  issued,  signed  by  General  Narciso  Lopez, 
"  chief  of  the  patriotic  junta  for  the  promotion  of  the  po- 
litical interests  of  Cuba,  and  the  contemplated  head  of  the 
provisional  government,  and  commander-in-chief  of  the  revo- 
lutionary movement  about  to  be  now  undertaken  through 
my  agency  and  permissive  authority  for  the  liberation  of 
Cuba."  Everybody  knew  that  the  payment  of  the  bonds 
was  based  on  the  success  of  the  revolution,  but  those  who 
invested  large  amounts  of  money  in  them  at  from  three  to 
twenty  cents  on  the  dollar  thought  the  speculation  one  of 
great  promise.  Lopez  and  the  schemers  deluded  them- 
selves; it  was  easy  for  them  to  dupe  others.  The  ways 
and  means  being  provided,  a  man  of  ability  and  influence 
was  desired  as  leader  of  the  expedition.  Lopez  offered  the 
command  to  Jefferson  Davis,  then  a  United  States  senator, 
who,  deeming  it  inconsistent  with  his  duty,  declined  it,  at 
the  same  time  recommending  Robert  E.  Lee.  Lee  was  then 
invited  to  take  the  leadership  of  the  expedition,  but,  be- 
lieving that  his  position  in  the  United  States  army  should 
prevent  him  from  giving  heed  to  such  a  proposal,  he  re- 
fused it.1  General  Lopez  was  therefore  left  in  sole  com- 
mand ;  but  it  was  not  difficult  to  get  more  followers  than 
he  could  use,  for  the  undertaking  was  called  an  easy  one, 
and  unusual  inducements  were  held  out  to  those  who  would 
enlist.  It  was  said  that  not  only  were  the  Creoles  anxious 
to  rebel  against  Spain,  but  they  had  decided  upon  that  step, 
and  a  well-planned  revolution  was  already  in  progress.  The 
Spanish  army  had  been  tampered  with  and  would  frater- 


1  Memoir  of  Jefferson  Davis,  by  his  Wife,  vol.  i.  p.  412;  Life  of  Robert 
E.  Lee,  Long,  p.  72. 


218  FILLMORE'S   ADMINISTRATION  [1851 

nize  with  the  invaders  ;  all  the  officers  of  the  Spanish  navy 
in  the  West  Indies  were  favorable  to  the  patriotic  cause. 
The  landing  of  General  Lopez  and  his  followers  would  be 
the  signal  for  a  general  uprising ;  an  easy  victory  was  as- 
sured ;  it  would  only  remain  for  a  congress  to  dictate 
terms.  Those  who  were  so  fortunate  as  to  share  in  this 
expedition  as  officers  woAld  receive  confiscated  sugar-plan- 
tations, well  furnished  with  slaves ;  even  the  common  sol- 
diers were  each  to  get  the  sum  of  five  thousand  dollars. 
Sympathy  for  the  acquisition  of  Cuba  was  very  strong  at 
the  South,  and  the  promoters  played  upon  this  feeling.  It 
was  thought  by  the  least  sanguine  of  them  that  if  a  fairly 
successful  demonstration  were  made,  public  sentiment  would 
be  so  aroused  that  the  United  States  would  lend  their  as- 
sistance, or  at  any  rate  would  not  interfere  with  additional 
expeditions ;  for  the  object  of  the  patriots  was  to  establish 
a  republic,  or  annex  Cuba  to  our  country  on  favorable  terms. 
The  Secretary  of  State,  however,  appreciated  fully  what 
honest  neutrality  meant ;  and,  as  he  had  stated  in  the  Sen- 
ate the  year  previous,1  Spain  had  well-grounded  reasons  to 
count  on  our  friendship,  for  we  had  at  different  times  given 
her  assurances  that  if  she  would  abstain  from  the  voluntary 
surrender  of  Cuba  to  a  European  power,  "she  might  be 
assured  of  the  good  offices  and  the  good- will  of  the  United 
States  ...  to  maintain  her  in  possession  of  the  island."  Nor 
did  the  President  shrink  from  his  duty.  The  invaders  first 
purposed  to  start  from  Savannah,  but  this  was  prevented 
by  the  energetic  action  of  the  government.  That  the  ship- 
load of  adventurers  finally  got  away  from  New  Orleans 
was  not  due  to  negligence  at  Washington,  but  to  the  dere- 
liction in  duty  of  the  collector  of  the  port  from  whence  they 
set  sail.  On  the  early  morning  of  August  3d,  the  steamer 
Pampero  left  New  Orleans,  with  Lopez  and  nearly  five 
hundred  men ;  they  were  mostly  ill-informed  youths,  and 
the  majority  of  them  were  American  citizens.  When  the 


May  21st,  1850. 


CH.  m.]  THE  LOPEZ  EXPEDITION  219 

steamer  arrived  off  the  coast  of  Cuba,  she  was  badly  piloted 
and  ran  aground,  so  that  the  invaders  were  forced  to  land 
at  a  place  not  of  their  choosing.  They  went  ashore  on  the 
night  between  the  llth  and  12th  of  August,  at  a  spot 
about  sixty  miles  from  Havana.  The  force  was  divided, 
the  main  body  proceeding  into  the  interior  under  Lopez, 
while  two  hundred  men,  commanded  by  Colonel  Crittenden, 
remained  to  guard  the  stores  until  transportation  could  be 
obtained.  On  the  13th,  when  marching  to  join  Lopez, 
Crittenden  was  attacked  by  a  superior  force.  The  officers 
displayed  bravery,  but  the  men  were  dispirited  from  the 
first  hours  on  shore.  Instead  of  finding  the  whole  island 
in  revolution  and  fourteen  towns  in  the. hands  of  patriots, 
as  they  had  been  led  to  believe,  they  saw  no  evidence  what- 
ever of  an  uprising ;  instead  of  being  received  as  friends, 
they  found  themselves  in  a  hostile  country.  To  fight  dis- 
ciplined troops  with  the  odds  against  them  was  peril  enough, 
yet,  to  add  to  the  misery  of  the  invaders,  they  had  no  artil- 
lery and  no  rifles;  their  arms  were  condemned  muskets. 
Such  a  contest  could  only  be  of  short  duration.  Colonel 
Crittenden  and  his  men  soon  retreated  to  the  place  of  dis- 
embarkation ;  about  fifty  of  them  took  boat  and  were  mak- 
ing for  the  United  States,  when  they  were  captured  by  a 
Spanish  ship  of  war  which  was  cruising  on  the  coast.  They 
were  carried  to  Havana,  tried  and  sentenced  by  a  military 
court,  and  were  publicly  shot.  The  men  under  Lopez  were 
attacked  at  the  same  time  as  was  Crittenden's  detachment ; 
many  of  them  were  killed  or  wounded,  and  they  were  forced 
to  retreat ;  they  went  into  the  interior  and  sought  refuge 
in  the  mountains,  but  they  were  pursued  by  the  troops  and, 
after  two  skirmishes,  were  dispersed  on  the  24th  of  Au- 
gust. Those  'Who  had  not  been  killed,  or  who  had  not 
died  of  hunger  or  fatigue,  were  made  prisoners.  Some 
days  afterwards  Lopez  was  taken  and  garroted  in  the  pub- 
lic square  opposite  the  prison  in  Havana.  Some  of  his  fol- 
lowers were  pardoned,  and  the  rest,  one  hundred  and  sixty- 
two  in  number,  most  of  them  American  citizens,  were  sent 


220  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1851 

to  Spain,  where  it  was  understood  they  would  be  put  to 
work  in  the  mines.1 

In  the  meantime  a  crowd  of  adventurers  had  come  to  New 
Orleans  and  were  anxiously  awaiting  news  from  Lopez ;  if 
the  intelligence  were  favorable,  another  expedition  would 
be  fitted  out,  and  this  they  intended  to  join.  The  Cuban 
question  was  the  sole  topic  of  discussion  on  the  streets,  in 
the  cafes  and  bar-rooms,  of  this  excitable  Southern  city,  then 
at  the  zenith  of  its  importance.  Spurious  despatches  giving 
accounts  of  victories  by  Lopez  appeared  in  the  New  Orleans 
Delta,  whose  editor  was  the  chief  promoter  of  the  enterprise, 
and  whose  faith  and  money  were  alike  engaged.  There 
was  enough  opposition  to  the  prevailing  opinion  to  increase 
the  earnestness  with  which  the  side  of  the  filibusters  was 
advocated.  The  newspaper  La  Union  espoused  with  vigor 
the  Spanish  cause,  and  vehemently  denounced  the  Ameri- 
cans. The  excitement  had  risen  to  fever  heat  when  the 
news  arrived,  on  August  21st,  of  the  shooting  of  Colonel 
Crittenden  and  fifty  of  his  companions.  It  was  at  the  same 
time  learned  that  many  of  the  unhappy  victims  had  written 
letters  to  their  friends,  leaving  them  in  the  care  of  the  Cap- 
tain-General, who  had  forwarded  them  by  the  secretary  of 
the  Spanish  consul  at  New  Orleans.  The  letters  arrived 
on  the  same  steamer  that  brought  the  woful  intelligence ; 
and  it  was  reported  that  they  were  detained  and  had  not 
been  given  up  when  asked  for.  This  stirred  up  a  mob  to 


1  My  authorities,  in  addition  to  what  have  been  cited,  for  this  account 
are  two  letters  of  Colonel  Crittenden — one  to  Dr.  Lucien  Hensley,  the  other 
to  his  uncle,  the  Attorney-General — both  of  them  written  just  before  he 
was  shot ;  a  letter  from  Philip  Van  Vechten,  a  lieutenant  under  Lopez, 
who  was  pardoned ;  the  personal  narrative  of  C.  N.  Howell,  who  accom- 
panied the  expedition ;  Commander  C.  T.  Platt's  official  despatch  to  the 
Navy  Department  from  Havana,  dated  Sept.  1st;  Memorias  sobre  el 
Estado  Politico,  Gobierno  y  Administracion  de  la  Isla  de  Cuba,  por  el 
Teniente-General  Don  Jose  de  la  Concha,  Madrid,  1853;  Annual  Message 
of  President  Fillmore,  Dec.  2d,  1851 ;  Cincinnati  Commercial,  cited  by 
National  Intelligencer  of  Oct.  4th ;  Life  of  Webster,  Curtis. 


CH.  III.]  WEBSTER  AND  SPAIN  221 

gut  the  office  of  La  Union  and  sack  the  cigar-store  called 
La  Corina,  whose  proprietor  had  been  insulting  in  his  talk 
about  Americans.  The  rioters  broke  into  the  office  of  the 
Spanish  consul ;  the  portraits  of  the  Queen  of  Spain  and  of 
the  Captain -General  of  Cuba  were  defaced,  and  the  Spanish 
flag  was  torn  to  pieces.  Other  buildings  were  attacked  and 
more  property  was  destroyed.  At  different  times  the  riot- 
ers were  addressed  by  the  mayor,  sheriff,  and  district  at- 
torney; finally,  having  wreaked  their  vengeance  on  the 
chief  offenders,  the  violence  of  the  mob  came  to  an  end ; 
no  one  was  killed  and  only  one  man  was  injured. 

This  occurrence  gave  rise  to  a  nice  diplomatic  question. 
The  Spanish  minister  at  Washington  demanded  redress  for 
the  insult  to  the  flag  and  pecuniary  indemnity  for  the  per- 
sonal losses.  After  a  certain  amount  of  correspondence,  in 
which  the  provocation  was  duly  pointed  out  as  showing 
that  the  outrage  "  was  committed  in  the  heat  of  blood,  and 
not  in  pursuance  of  any  premeditated  plan  or  purpose  of 
injury  or  insult,"  the  Secretary  of  State  frankly  acknowl- 
edged the  wrong,  expressed  regret  in  the  most  handsome 
terms,  and  said  that  when  a  Spanish  consul  was  again  sent 
to  New  Orleans,  instructions  would  be  given  to  salute  the 
flag  of  his  ship  "  as  a  demonstration  of  respect,  such  as  may 
signify  to  him  and  his  government  the  sense  entertained  by 
the  government  of  the  United  States  of  the  gross  injustice 
done  to  his  predecessor  by  a  lawless  mob,  as  well  as  the 
indignity  and  insult  offered  by  it  to  a  foreign  State  with 
which  the  United  States  are,  and  wish  ever  to  remain,  on 
terms  of  the  most  respectful  and  pacific  intercourse."  The 
satisfactory  manner  in  which  Webster  concluded  the  matter 
deserves  much  higher  praise  than  the  vigorous  outburst  of 
nationality  in  the  Hiilsemann  letter.  In  our  country,  where 
every  citizen  holds  pronounced  opinions  on  the  most  deli- 
cate questions  of  diplomacy,  the  Secretary  of  State  who 
desires  political  advancement  is  tempted  to  court  an  oppor- 
tunity such  as  Hiilsemann  gave  Webster,  and  to  shun  an 
occasion  like  the  matter  in  hand.  That  he  treated  the  Span- 


222  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1861 

iard  as  justly  as  he  did  the  Austrian  added  to  the  laurels 
he  had  already  won  in  the  State  department.  Enthusiastic 
meetings  of  sympathy  with  Cuban  independence  and  the 
cause  of  the  filibusters  had  been  held  in  Nashville,  Cincinnati, 
Baltimore,  Philadelphia,  Pittsburgh,  and  New  York  City; 
the  cotton  States  did  not  need  to  express  their  feeling,  for 
every  one  knew  that  they  were  decidedly  for  Cuba.  When 
the  historian  reflects  that  our  State  department  has  some- 
times been  influenced  against  its  better  judgment  by  strong 
popular  sentiment,  he  writes  a  grateful  page  in  recording 
that  the  astute  and  experienced  Lord  Palmerston  unreserved- 
ly praised  the  note  addressed  by  Webster  to  the  Spanish 
Minister.  He  called  it "  highly  creditable  to  the  good  faith 
and  sense  of  justice  of  the  United  States  government,"  and 
said  that  the  Secretary  "  more  rightly  consulted  the  true 
dignity  of  the  country  by  so  handsome  a  communication 
than  if  the  acknowledgment  of  wrong  and  the  expression 
of  regret  had  been  made  in  more  niggardly  terms."  When 
Congress  met,  an  appropriation  was  made,  on  the  recom- 
mendation of  the  President,  to  indemnify  the  Spanish  con- 
sul and  other  Spanish  subjects  at  New  Orleans  for  their  per- 
sonal loss.1 

In  the  autumn  of  this  year  there  were  two  important 
illustrations  of  the  working  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  law. 
Gorsuch,  a  resident  of  Maryland,  with  his  son,  several 
friends,  and  a  United  States  officer,  all  well  armed  and 
bearing  the  warrant  of  the  commissioner  at  Philadelphia, 
went  to  Christiana,  Lancaster  County,  Pa.,  in  search  of  two 
fugitives  who  had  escaped  three  years  previously.  Arriv- 
ing at  a  house  about  two  miles  from  the  village  where  they 
supposed  the  negroes  were  secreted,  they  demanded  their 


1  Report  of  account  of  the  riot  by  the  District  Attorney  and  Mayor  of 
New  Orleans  to  the  State  Department,  Senate  documents,  1st  Sess.,  32d 
Cong.,  vol.  i. ;  debate  on  the  subject  in  Congress,  Congressional  Globe,  vol. 
xxiv. ;  New  Orleans  Bee,  cited  by  the  New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  1st;  Life 
of  Webster,  Curtis,  vol.  ii. 


CH.IH.]        THE  WORKING  OF  THE  FUGITIVE  SLAVE  LAW          223 

property,  and  broke  into  the  lower  part  of  the  house.  The 
colored  inmates  kept  possession  of  the  upper  story,  the  fugi- 
tives saying  they  would  rather  die  than  go  back  to  slavery, 
and  their  associates  decisively  refusing  to  give  them  up. 
Meanwhile,  a  horn  was  blown  as  a  signal  to  the  negroes 
in  the  neighborhood,  with  the  result  of  bringing  together 
from  fifty  to  one  hundred  men  armed  with  guns,  axes,  corn- 
cutters,  and  clubs.  The  slave-hunters  having  left  the  house, 
an  angry  parley  ensued,  which  was  at  length  interrupted 
by  the  arrival  of  Castner  Hanaway  and  another  gentleman, 
both  Quakers  living  in  the  neighborhood.  The  deputy  mar- 
shal summoned  them  to  aid  him  in  making  the  arrest  of  the 
fugitives,  which  they  indignantly  refused  to  do ;  but  they 
endeavored  to  calm  the  wrath  of  the  negroes,  and  at  the 
same  time  warned  Gorsuch  and  his  companions  that  it 
would  be  madness  to  persist,  saying,  "  The  sooner  you  leave 
the  better,  if  you  would  prevent  bloodshed."  Gorsuch  em- 
phatically refused  to  quit  his  ground;  words  of  irritation 
led  to  firing,  and  a  general  fight  resulted.  The  slave-owner 
and  his  son  fell  —  the  one  dead  and  the  other  wounded, 
while  none  of  the  negroes  received  more  than  slight  wounds. 
This  affair  caused  great  excitement  throughout  the  whole 
country.  The  anti-slavery  people  did  not  defend  the  vio- 
lence of  the  negro  mob ;  but  the  moral  which  they  drew 
from  the  affair  was :  "  But  for  slavery  such  things  would 
not  be ;  but  for  the  Fugitive  Slave  law,  they  would  not  be 
in  the  free  States." '  The  United  States  marshal,  district 
attorney,  and  commissioner  from  Philadelphia,  with  forty- 
five  United  States  marines  from  the  navy-yard,  repaired  im- 
mediately, by  the  orders  of  the  President,  to  the  scene  of  the 
trouble.  A  posse  of  about  forty  of  the  city  marshal's  police, 
with  the  assistance  of  a  large  body  of  special  constables, 
scoured  the  country,  and  made  arrests  of  those  who  were 
supposed  to  have  been  engaged  in  the  fight ;  the  fugitive 
slaves,  however,  had  escaped.  Castner  Hanaway  and  his 


New  York  Tribune. 


$24  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1861 

associate,  hearing  that  warrants  were  issued  for  them,  vol- 
untarily surrendered  themselves.  The  prisoners  were  taken 
to  Philadelphia  and  indicted  for  treason.  Castner  Hana- 
way  was  first  tried ;  prominent  among  his  counsel  was  Thad- 
deus  Stevens,  and  Justice  Grier,  of  the  United  States  Su- 
preme Court,  presided.  His  charge  was  so  clearly  in  favor 
of  the  prisoner  that  the  jury  speedily  agreed  upon  a  verdict 
of  not  guilty.  One  of  the  negroes  was  tried,  but  not  con- 
victed ;  the  rest  were  not  brought  to  trial.1 

The  other  case  is  that  of  the  "  Jerry  rescue,"  which  took 
place  at  Syracuse,  N.  Y .  On  the  first  day  of  October,  Jerry 
McHenry,  an  athletic  mulatto  and  industrious  mechanic, 
who  had  been  living  in  that  city  for  several  years,  was 
claimed  as  a  fugitive  slave  by  a  man  from  Missouri.  Jerry 
made  one  ineffectual  attempt  to  escape,  and  the  courage 
which  he  displayed,  together  with  the  one-sided  charac- 
ter of  the  proceedings  incident  to  a  claim  made  under  the 
Fugitive  Slave  law,  aroused  active  sympathy  for  the  negro 
from  the  citizens  and  sojourners  of  Syracuse.  The  city  was 
full  of  people,  for  on  that  day  were  held  a  meeting  of  the 
county  agricultural  society  and  the  Liberty  party's  annual 
convention.  Jerry  was  imprisoned  overnight  in  the  police- 
office  to  await  the  conclusion  of  the  examination  on  the 
morrow.  He  had,  unknown  to  himself,  many  ardent  friends, 
among  whom  were  the  Rev.  Samuel  J.  May  and  Gerrit  Smith. 
May,3  who  had  charge  of  the  Unitarian  Society  of  Syracuse, 
was  a  rare  combination  of  perfect  courage  and  gentleness 
of  spirit.  Gerrit  Smith,  a  great-hearted  man,  and  a  deep 


1  The  Underground  Railroad,  William  Still,  particularly  the  account 
cited  from  the  Pennsylvania  Freeman,  a  local  newspaper,  edited  by  a 
Quaker,  p.  349.  The  New  York  Independent,  Sept.  18th  and  25th ;  not- 
ably a  letter  from  Rev.  Mr.  Gorsuch,  a  son  of  the  man  who  was  killed, 
which  purports  to  be  a  reliable  narrative  of  the  bloody  affray;  also  Rise 
and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power,  vol.  ii.  p.  327.  The  fight  took  place  Sept, 
tlth. 

»  See  p.  65. 


Cam.]  THE  "JERRY  RESCUE"  225 

thinker  on  moral  and  religious  subjects,  had  early  espoused 
the  cause  of  the  slave.  Shrewd  in  his  investments,  he  had 
accumulated  large  wealth,  which  he  devoted  to  the  good  of 
his  kind ;  and  later,  as  a  noted  worker  in  the  Liberty  party, 
he  was  elected  to  Congress  as  its  candidate  from  one  of  the 
northern  districts  of  New  York. 

Under  the  lead  of  these  two  gentlemen,  twenty  or  thirty 
resolute  men  determined  to  rescue  the  negro.  Early  in  the 
evening  they  made  an  attack  upon  the  police-office,  and  beat 
down  the  prison  door  with  a  battering-ram ;  they  encoun- 
tered little  resistance,  and  easily  overpowered  the  police, 
without,  however,  inflicting  any  personal  injury.  They  then 
led  Jerry  out,  put  him  in  a  buggy  drawn  by  a  swift  pair  of 
horses,  and  took  him  to  a  place  of  refuge  in  the  city,  where 
he  remained  concealed  for  several  days,  being  finally  sent 
safely  through  to  Canada.  The  anti-slavery  people  exulted 
greatly  over  this  affair,  and  their  elation  was  increased  by 
the  failure  to  convict  any  of  the  eighteen  rescuers  who  were 
indicted.  Several  were  tried,  but  the  United  States  district 
attorney  did  not  venture  to  bring  to  trial  the  leaders  in  the 
affair,  although  they  defied  him  to  do  so ;  Samuel  J.  May, 
Gerrit  Smith,  and  another  gentleman,  uniting  in  a  pub- 
lished acknowledgment  to  the  effect  that  they  had  done 
all  they  could  in  the  rescue  of  Jerry  ;  that  they  were  ready 
for  trial,  and  would  give  the  court  no  trouble  as  to  the  fact, 
but  would  rest  their  defence  upon  the  unconstitutionally 
and  extreme  wickedness  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  law.1 

Since  the  passage  of  this  law  one  year  had  now  elapsed. 
The  fact  was  patent  that  in  most  Northern  communities  it 
could  not  be  enforced  without  more  trouble  and  expense 
than  were  worth  the  taking.  This  law  violated  the  funda- 
mental principle  of  democratic  government, — that  laws  are 
futile  unless  upheld  by  public  sentiment.  It  was  a  curious 
commentary  on  a  statute  that  gentlemen  of  the  very  high- 


1  Recollections  of  Anti-slavery  Conflict,  Samuel  J.  May,  p.  873  et  seg.' 
Life  of  Gerrit  Smith,  Frothingham,  p.  117. 
I.— 15 


226  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1861 

est  character,  like  Samuel  J.  May  and  Gerrit  Smith,  should 
lead  a  mob  of  earnest,  unarmed  men  to  resist  the  execution 
of  it.  Most  of  the  anti-slavery  men  would  not  advise  resist- 
ance to  the  law ;  the  law-abiding  sentiment  of  the  North  was 
strong,  and  did  not  sympathize  with  forcible  opposition  to 
those  invested  with  public  authority ;  but  to  fair-minded  men 
it  was  clear  that  the  attempt  to  carry  into  effect  the  Fugi- 
tive Slave  act  in  many  parts  of  the  North  would  simply  be 
kicking  against  the  pricks. 

During  the  year  the  South  had  gained  in  union  feeling. 
The  compromise  measures,  as  we  have  seen,  were  generally 
satisfactory  outside  of  South  Carolina  and  Mississippi.  In 
May  a  convention  of  Southern  Rights  associations  of  South 
Carolina,  held  at  Charleston,  resolved  in  favor  of  secession, 
with  or  without  the  co-operation  of  other  Southern  States.1 
This  feeling  was  then  apparently  strong  throughout  the 
State,  since  of  thirty  newspapers,  only  two  were  opposed  to 
secession.8  The  election  in  October  showed  that  the  South- 
ern Eights  convention  and  the  newspapers  had  not  repre- 
sented the  sentiment  of  the  people,  or  else  that  between  May 
and  October  a  great  change  had  taken  place  in  public  opin- 
ion. The  issue  was  made  in  the  election  of  delegates  to  a 
State  convention.  One  set  of  delegates  opposed  action  by 
South  Carolina  alone ;  the  other  set  were  unconditionally  in 
favor  of  secession.  Two-thirds  of  the  delegates  chosen  be- 
longed to  the  former  party,  and  in  the  country  at  large  this 
was  regarded  as  a  Unionist  victory ;  and  well  it  might  be,  for 
to  vote  co-operation  with  the  other  Southern  States  meant 
to  abide  by  the  Union.3 

In  Mississippi  a  very  exciting  and  significant  canvass  took 
place  between  Jefferson  Davis  and  Senator  Foote.  One  had 
been  a  strong  opponent,  and  the  other  an  ardent  supporter, 
of  the  compromise  measures  in  the  Senate,  and  they  now 


1  National  Intelligencer,  May  13th. 

*  Von  Hoist,  vol.  iv.  p.  34. 

•  Tribune  Almanac,  1852,  p .43;  Newport.  Independent,  Oct.  23d,  1851. 


CH.m.]  CHARLES  SUMNER  AND  BENJAMIN  F.  WADE  227 

went  before  the  people  of  their  State  for  vindication.  Davis 
was  the  candidate  for  governor  of  the  States-rights  party, 
which  believed  in  the  right  of  secession  and  favored  a  South- 
ern convention  for  action,  while  Foote  was  the  candidate  of 
the  Unionists.  The  question  was  thoroughly  discussed  on 
the  stump  by  both  men,  and  the  contest  was  exceedingly 
close,  Foote  having  but  1009  majority  over  his  competitor.1 
The  majority  would  have  been  larger  had  it  not  been  for 
the  personal  popularity  of  Davis,  who  was  stronger  than  his 
party.  The  State  convention  which  had  been  elected  pre- 
vious to  the  gubernatorial  contest  declared  that  the  people 
of  Mississippi  would  abide  by  the  compromise  measures,  and 
that  the  right  of  secession  was  utterly  unsanctioned  by  the 
Federal  Constitution.8 

The  Thirty-second  Congress  met  on  December  1st.  There 
was  little  change  in  the  relative  strength  of  the  political 
parties  in  the  Senate;  the  Democrats  had  made  a  slight 
gain.  Charles  Sumner,  of  Massachusetts,  and  Benjamin  F. 
Wade,  of  Ohio,  took  their  seats  in  the  Senate ;  they  re- 
sembled each  other  in  nothing  but  personal  courage  and  ha- 
tred of  slavery.  Sumner  was  a  graduate  of  Harvard,  a  repre- 
sentative of  the  culture  of  Boston,  and  the  intimate  friend  of 
nearly  every  one  of  that  brilliant  set  of  scholars,  poets,  and 
literati  to  whose  productions  during  the  twenty  years  be- 
fore the  civil  war  we  may  point  with  a  just  feeling  of  pride. 
Himself  a  ripe  scholar,  he  loved  the  classics ;  he  was  a  pro- 
found student  of  history,  delving  into  the  past  so  earnestly 
that  his  desire  to  visit  the  old  countries  grew  into  a  passion. 
He  went  abroad  furnished  with  letters  from  the  wise  and 
influential  of  America  to  the  men  of  distinction  across  the 
sea,  and  returned  with  a  mind  broadened  by  contact  with  the 
thinkers,  writers,  and  politicians  of  Europe.  He  had  charm- 
ing manners  and  rare  social  accomplishments ;  he  and  Chase 


1  Tribune  Almanac,  1852,  p.  44 ;  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Confederate  GOT- 
ernment,  vol.  i.  p.  20.     The  election  took  place  in  November. 
*  Congressional  Globe,  voL  xxiv.  p.  35. 


228  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1861 

were  considered  the  handsomest  men  in  the  Senate.  A  fa- 
vorite child  of  fortune,  kind  friends  ever  stood  ready  to  give 
their  help ;  opportunities  were  made  for  him.  Sumner  was 
not  a  great  lawyer ;  the  bent  of  his  mind  was  towards  poli- 
tics rather  than  law.  Possessed  of  strong  moral  feelings, 
politics  especially  attracted  him  on  account  of  the  moral 
element  that  now  entered  into  public  questions.  From  an 
early  day  he  had  hated  slavery ;  the  Liberator  was  the  first 
paper  he  had  ever  subscribed  for,  having  read  it  since  1835, 
yet  he  was  opposed  to  Garrison's  doctrines  on  the  Constitu- 
tion and  the  Union.  A  Whig  until  1848,  he  then  became 
a  Free-soiler,  and  by  a  well-managed  coalition  of  the  Free- 
soilers  and  Democrats  he  was  this  year  elected  senator.1 

Benjamin  F.  Wade,  also  a  son  of  New  England,  was  in 
character  of  the  rugged  heroic  type.  Born  of  poor  parents, 
he  worked  on  the  western  Massachusetts  farm  in  the  sum- 
mer, and  had  only  the  common  schooling  of  two  or  three 
months  in  the  winter.  His  religious  education  was  wholly 
under  the  guidance  of  his  pious  mother ;  he  read  the  Bible 
with  diligence,  and  knew  the  Westminster  Catechism  by 
heart.  When  twenty-one,  he  went  to  Ohio  and  took  up  his 
home  on  the  Western  Keserve.  The  problem  then  with  him 
was  how  to  get  a  living  in  this  new  rough  country.  He 
worked  as  a  drover  and  as  a  common  laborer;  but  finally 
deciding  to  adopt  law  as  a  profession,  he  studied  in  a  law- 
yer's office,  was  admitted  to  the  bar,  and  was  fortunate  in 
forming  a  partnership  with  Joshua  R.  Giddings,  a  leading 
lawyer  in  northeastern  Ohio.  Only  by  a  strong  effort  of 
the  will  was  Wade  able  to  overcome  his  constitutional  diffi- 
dence in  public  speaking,  which  at  the  outset  threatened  to 
defeat  his  intention  of  becoming  an  advocate ;  but  he  grew 
to  be  a  vigorous  speaker. 


1  For  a  detailed  account  of  this  coalition,  see  relation  of  Henry  Wilson, 
who  was  one  of  the  prime  movers.  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power, 
chap,  xxvii.  This  estimate  of  Sumner  I  have  mainly  derived  from  Edw.  L. 
Pierce's  Memoir  and  Letters  of  Charles  Sumner. 


CH.IIL]  THE  THIRTY-SECOND  CONGRESS  229 

His  second  legal  associate,  Kufus  P.  Kanney,  became  the 
best  lawyer  and  soundest  judge  of  Ohio,  taking  rank  with 
the  most  carefully  trained  legal  minds  of  the  country.  The 
bar  of  the  Western  Reserve  was  an  able  body  of  men ;  they 
had  but  few  law-books,  and  those  they  mastered;  their  lit- 
erature was  the  Bible  and  Shakespeare,  and  their  forensic 
contests  were  apt  displays  of  logic,  invective,  and  wit.  In 
that  community  influence  went  for  nothing ;  if  a  man  rose 
to  the  top  it  was  through  ability  and  industry.  In  those 
days  the  best  lawyers  went  to  the  legislature  and  sat  on  the 
bench.  There  they  took  great  interest  in  the  enactment  of 
necessary  measures,  and  were  careful  that  the  phraseology 
should  be  simple  and  exact,  considering  the  deliberate  yet 
positive  expounding  of  the  law  a  grave  and  solemn  duty. 
It  was  an  honor  to  be  a  member  of  the  legislature,  and  an 
honor  to  be  a  judge. 

Wade  had  been  a  State  circuit  judge,  had  served  in  the 
legislature,  and  was  this  year  elected  to  the  Senate  as  a 
Whig  of  well-known  anti-slavery  principles.  He  was  thor- 
oughly honest ;  his  manners  were  rough,  and  his  style  df  ad- 
dress was  abrupt.1 

There  were  now  five  men  in  the  Senate  who,  though  dif- 
fering in  party  antecedents,  were  ready  to  work  together  in 
opposing  the  extension  of  slavery :  Seward,  of  New  York ; 
Chase  and  Wade,  of  Ohio ;  Sumner,  of  Massachusetts ;  and 
Hale,  of  New  Hampshire.  Their  ages  were  respectively  fifty, 
forty-three,  fifty-one,  forty,  and  forty-five.  The  absence  of 
Benton  from  this  Senate  was  conspicuous ;  after  thirty  years 
of  eminent  service  he  had  failed  to  secure  a  re-election  be- 
cause he  would  not  sacrifice  his  principles  one  jot  at  the  dic- 
tation of  the  pro-slavery  Democrats  of  Missouri.8 

The  members  of  the  House  of  Representatives  who  as- 
sembled December  1st  had  all  been  elected  since  the  passage 


1  I  have  drawn  this  characterization  of  Wade  largely  from  his  biogra- 
phy, by  A.  G.  Riddle. 

3  Life  of  Benton,  Roosevelt,  p.  341. 


230  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1851 

of  the  compromise  measures,  and  their  political  classifica- 
tion in  contrast  with  that  of  the  last  Congress  affords  a  good 
idea  of  public  sentiment  at  the  time.  There  were  in  this 
House  one  hundred  and  forty  Democrats,  eighty -eight 
Whigs,  and  five  Free-soilers.1  There  was  almost  no  change 
in  the  delegation  from  the  slave  States ;  the  Democrats  had 
lost  two  seats,  which  the  Whigs  had  gained.  But  at  the 
North,  the  Whigs  had  lost  twenty-four,  while  the  Democrats 
had  gained  twenty-six  members.2  Two  causes  had  contrib- 
uted to  effect  this  result.  In  some  districts  the  Democrats 
won  because  they  had  been  more  earnest  than  the  Whigs  in 
the  advocacy  of  the  compromise;  in  other  districts  Whigs  lost 
their  seats  because  they  had  supported  the  compromise  or  had 
failed  to  vote  against  the  Fugitive  Slave  law.  Of  twenty- 
eight  Northern  Democrats  who  had  voted  for  that  act,  fif- 
teen were  candidates  for  re-election,  of  whom  twelve  were 
returned.  Only  three  Northern  Whigs  had  voted  for  the 
bill ;  one  of  them  was  a  member  of  the  present  House. 

On  the  first  day  <!>f  the  session  a  debate  took  place  in  the 
House  as  to  which  party  was  the  more  faithful  to  the  com- 
promise. The  Democratic  caucus  had  laid  on  the  table  a 
resolution  endorsing  those  measures,  while  the  Whig  caucus, 
in  a  formal  declaration,  had  approved  them.  Neither  ac- 
tion had  any  significance ;  it  was  simply  clever  political 
fencing.  This  complexion,  however,  had  the  situation  as- 
sumed :  every  article  of  the  compromise  was  regarded  as  a 
finality  at  the  North  except  the  Fugitive  Slave  law,  while 
the  touchstone  of  fidelity  to  the  settlement  of  1850  was  op- 
position to  the  repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  act  and  willing- 
ness to  support  the  strict  execution  of  it. 

The  President,  in  his  annual  message,  reflected  fairly 
the  tendency  of  public  opinion.  "  The  agitation,"  said  he, 


»  This  is  the  classification  of  the  New  York  Tribune;  that  of  the  Con- 
gressional Globe  is  142  Democrats,  91  Whigs.  For  the  classification  of 
the  Thirty-first  Congress,  see  p.  116  et  seq. 

9  The  Democrats  had  gained  the  two  members  from  California. 


CH.  HI.]  KOSSUTH  231 

"  which  for  a  time  threatened  to  disturb  the  fraternal  rela- 
tions which  make  us  one  people,  is  fast  subsiding ;"  and  "  I 
congratulate  you  and  the  country  upon  the  general  acqui- 
escence in  these  measures  of  peace  which  has  been  exhibit- 
ed in  all  parts  of  the  republic." 

The  concern  about  the  general  acceptance  of  the  compro- 
mise and  the  execution  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  law  was  now 
overshadowed  by  the  interest  taken  in  the  visit  of  Kossuth. 
The  Hungarian  revolution  had  failed,  owing  largely  to 
the  fact  that  Russia  had-  come  to  the  assistance  of  Austria. 
Kossuth  fled  to  Turkey,  and  had  been  there  some  time  un- 
der detention,  when  the  President  was  directed  by  Congress 
to  offer  one  of  the  ships  of  our  Mediterranean  squadron  to 
convey  him  and  his  associates  to  the  United  States.  Aus- 
tria pressed  Turkey  very  vigorously  not  to  release  the  ref- 
ugees without  her  consent ;  but,  through  the  exertions  of  the 
American  minister  and  of  the  English  and  Sardinian  repre- 
sentatives at  the  Porte,  the  government  of  Turkey  was  in- 
duced to  consent  to  their  departure,  and  they  left  in  the 
summer  of  this  year  on  the  frigate  Mississippi.  Kossuth 
turned  aside  to  visit  England,  in  order  to  arouse  enthusiasm 
for  his  cause  and  get  help  for  down-trodden  Hungary.  He 
then  came  to  America,  arriving  at  New  York  quarantine  on 
Friday,  December  5th,  at  one  o'clock  in  the  morning.  A 
salute  of  twenty-one  guns,  an  address  of  welcome  by  the 
health  officer,  a  hearty  greeting  on  shore  from  people  who 
had  gathered  at  this  unseasonable  hour,  showed  that  the 
country  would  receive  the  refugee  as  a  conquering  hero. 
When  day  came,  the  citizens  of  Staten  Island  turned  out  to 
congratulate  Kossuth  that  he  had  set  foot  in  the  land  of 
liberty.  The  morning  was  given  up  to  callers ;  among 
those  who  paid  their  respects  were  Foresti,  an  Italian  exile, 
and  an  Indian  chief,  who  referred  to  himself  as  being  also 
"  one  of  the  unfortunate."  At  noon  there  was  a  general 
procession,  and  a  formal  address  of  welcome,  to  which  Kos- 
suth made  an  appropriate  reply.  This  was  but  the  prologue ; 
the  play  was  on  the  morrow.  On  this  Saturday,  nature 


232  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1851 

vied  with  the  people.  The  deep-blue  sky,  the  clear,  brilliant 
atmosphere,  the  crisp  yet  mild  air  of  the  December  day, 
seemed  to  set  off  fitly  the  enthusiasm  of  the  multitude.  Kos- 
suth  and  his  party  left  Staten  Island  at  eleven  o'clock  on 
the  steamer  Vanderbilt,  which  had  come  for  him  in  the 
charge  of  the  reception  committee  of  the  New  York  Com- 
mon Council.  As  the  boat  steamed  by,  Governor's  Island 
fired  a  salute  of  thirty-one  guns,  New  Jersey  one  hundred 
and  twenty,  and  then  guns  were  fired  on  every  side.  As 
the  Vanderbilt  passed  the  navy-yard,  the  war-ships  North 
Carolina  and  Ohio  saluted,  and  all  the  ferry-boats  whistled. 
On  nearly  all  the  vessels — steamers  and  smaller  craft — in  the 
bay,  Hungarian  and  United  States  flags  floated  together. 
New  York  had  never  seen  a  finer  sight.  One  hundred  thou- 
sand people  were  waiting  on  the  Battery ;  Castle  Garden 
was  full  to  overflowing.  When  Kossuth  could  be  seen,  a 
tumultuous  roar  broke  forth ;  when  he  landed,  it  seemed, 
said  one  reporter,  as  if  the  shout  would  raise  the  vast  roof 
of  the  reception  hail ;  the  cheer  continued  uninterruptedly 
for  fifteen  minutec.  The  mayor,  who  was  primed  with  a 
speech,  in  vain  besought  silence.  At  last,  from  sheer  ex- 
haustion of  the  crowd,  the  uproar  ceased;  the  address  of 
welcome  was  made ;  but  when  Kossuth  rose  to  reply,  the  en- 
thusiasm again  burst  out.  Only  those  near  him  could  hear  a 
word,  yet  he  went  through  the  form  of  speaking,  and  writ- 
ten copies  of  this  carefully  prepared  declaration  of  his  self- 
imposed  errand  were  furnished  the  reporters.  The  speech 
over,  Kossuth,  mounted  on  Black  "Warrior,  a  war-horse  which 
had  been  in  many  battles  of  the  Florida  and  Mexican  wars, 
reviewed  the  troops  that  had  turned  out  to  escort  him. 
Then  the  procession  began  to  move,  which,  besides  the  mil- 
itary display,  comprised  a  large  number  of  civic  bodies,  and 
required  an  hour  to  pass  a  given  point.  When  Kossuth's  car- 
riage entered  Broadway  an  inspiring  sight  met  his  eyes.  All 
the  shops  and  houses  were  decorated,  many  of  them  with 
mottoes  of  sympathy  for  Hungary  and  welcome  for  her 
governor,  as  everybody  called  him.  The  street  was  jammed 


CH.  III.]  KOSSUTH  233 

with  people ;  every  window  was  alive  with  human  beings. 
There  was,  says  the  reporter,  "  a  continuous  roar  of  cheers 
like  waves  on  the  shore."  Every  one  agreed  that,  since  the 
landing  of  Lafayette,  no  such  enthusiasm  had  been  seen  in 
New  York ;  and  it  is  certain  that  no  foreigner  except  the 
gallant  Frenchman  ever  received  a  similar  ovation.  The 
greatest  of  Koman  generals  might  have  been  proud  of  such 
a  triumph. 

This  splendid  testimonial  was  not  so  much  to  the  man  as 
to  the  principle  of  which  he  was  the  incarnation.  The  dif- 
ferent manifestations  of  the  revolutionary  spirit  which  began 
in  Europe  in  1848  had  been  followed  with  deep  interest  in 
America.  The  readers  of  newspapers  were  fully  informed 
of  the  progress  of  the  events.  Though  European  news  came 
slower  then  than  now,  it  was  more  trustworthy.  The  Amer- 
ican correspondents  abroad  were  almost  always  men  of  edu- 
cation and  culture ;  many  of  them  had  attainments  which 
gave  them  access  to  the  best  society  of  the  countries  to 
which  they  were  sent.  They  knew  what  was  taking  place ; 
they  knew  how  to  discriminate  the  true  from  the  false,  and 
they  had  time  before  mail-day  to  sift  the  rumors  from  the 
facts  and  to  give  an  orderly  arrangement  to  their  narrative. 
Our  countrymen,  therefore,  of  this  time  had  correct  knowl- 
edge of  contemporary  events  in  Europe.  These  revolution- 
ary movements  seemed  to  them  due  to  American  example ; 
the  contemplation  of  the  free,  united,  and  happy  country 
created  a  yearning,  they  thought,  for  the  like,  and  this 
yearning  stirred  up  the  people  on  the  European  continent 
to  rebel  against  their  tyrants.  Never  had  there  been  a 
more  unquestioned  faith  in  our  institutions,  a  greater  desire 
to  propagate  the  principles  underlying  them,  or  a  more  sub- 
lime confidence  in  their  virtue.  This  feeling  found  an  offi- 
cial expression  in  the  Hiilsemann  letter,1  and  a  popular  ex- 
pression in  the  triumph  to  Kossuth.  The  blows  struck  for 
Hungarian  liberty  had  indeed  been  in  vain ;  but  the  hero  of 


See  p.  205. 


234  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1851 

the  revolution  was  here  to  tell  us  that  the  mighty  movement 
had  been  not  crushed,  but  only  delayed.  In  his  speech  he 
frankly  avowed  his  object.  "  I  come  here,"  he  said,  "  to  in- 
voke the  aid  of  the  great  American  republic  to  protect  my 
people,  peaceably,  if  they  may,  by  the  moral  influence  of 
their  declarations,  but  forcibly  if  they  must,  by  the  physi- 
cal power  of  their  arm — to  prevent  any  foreign  interference 
in  the  struggle  about  to  be  renewed  for  the  liberties  of  my 
country."  He  explained  why  it  was  that  he  had  such  hopes 
of  the  United  States.  "  Your  generous  act  of  my  libera- 
tion is  taken  by  the  world  for  the  revelation  of  the  fact  that 
the  United  States  are  resolved  not  to  allow  the  despots  of 
the  world  to  trample  on  oppressed  humanity."  It  was  soon 
well  understood  that  he  expected  the  United  States  and  Eng- 
land would  combine  to  prevent  the  interference  of  Kussia 
in  Austro-Hungarian  affairs,  and  that  he  wanted  to  raise  in 
this  country  one  million  dollars  on  Hungarian  bonds,  payable 
when  the  independence  of  the  country  should  be  achieved. 
It  is  quite  certain  that  if,  in  these  December  days,  a  popular 
vote  of  New  York  City  could  have  decided  the  foreign  policy 
of  the  nation,  it  would  have  been  in  favor  of  intermeddling  in 
European  affairs,  for  the  metropolitan  people  had  seemingly 
lost  their  heads.  On  the  evening  of  Kossuth's  arrival,  there 
was  a  torchlight  procession  in  his  honor ;  some  of  the  ban- 
ners had  legends  proposing  intervention  by  the  United  States 
in  behalf  of  oppressed  liberty  in  Europe ;  others  denoted  re- 
gret for  neglect  in  the  past,  and  bore  the  inscription,  "  May 
our  future  atone  for  the  past !" 

On  the  Monday  morning  following  his  arrival  the  New 
York  Tribune  maintained  that  while  non-intervention  in 
European  affairs  was  the  correct  principle,  there  might  be 
circumstances  where  our  own  interests,  as  well  as  our  duty  in 
the  family  of  States,  would  command  us  to  step  beyond  the 
straight  line  of  this  policy.  Most  of  the  New  York  press 
were  favorable  to  Kossuth,  and  the  editor  of  the  journal 
which  was  the  most  active  in  exposing  the  folly  of  the  craze 
was  denounced  as  "  a  mercenary  and  time-serving  political 


CH.  III.]  KOSSUTH  235 

parasite,"  and  "  the  exorbitant  and  unblushing  eulogist  of 
the  bloody  house  of  Hapsburg."  The  friends  of  Kossuth 
delighted  to  compare  him  with  Lafayette ;  his  enemies  said 
he  rather  called  to  mind  another  Frenchman,  Genet,  who,  at 
first  received  with  great  enthusiasm,  finally  became  a  stench 
in  the  nostrils  of  the  public.  One  extravagant  journalist, 
wrought  up  to  a  high  pitch  of  feeling  by  one  of  Kossuth's 
speeches,  declared  that  the  "Washington  of  the  eighteenth 
century  was  interpreted  by  the  Washington  of  the  nine- 
teenth. Steady  people  in  other  parts  of  the  country  thought 
New  York  had  run  mad ;  they  were  amazed  at  the  wild  in- 
fatuation, and  called  it  the  folly  of  the  day. 

Kossuth  showed  wonderful  tact  in  steering  clear  of  any- 
thing that  should  excite  partisan  or  sectional  feeling.  A 
delegation  of  the  American  and  Foreign  Anti-slavery  So- 
ciety called  upon  him  and  made  an  address.  He  replied : 
"  I  know  you  are  just  and  generous,  and  will  not  endeavor 
to  entangle  me  with  questions  of  a  party  character  while  I 
am  with  you.  I  must  attend  to  one  straight  course  and  not 
be  found  to  connect  myself  with  any  principle  but  the  one 
great  principle  of  my  country's  liberation."  A  party  of 
several  thousand  men  who  called  themselves  the  European 
Democracy,  composed  of  foreigners  from  Italy,  Germany, 
Poland,  Austria,  and  France,  marched  to  his  hotel  and  de- 
livered an  address  revealing  that  they  were  socialists.  Kos- 
suth replied  discreetly ;  he  was  not  a  socialist,  and,  indeed, 
that  question  was  not  the  one  at  issue  in  Hungary.  He  re- 
ceived successively  deputations  from  colored  men,  the  pres- 
bytery of  Brooklyn,  the  faculty  and  alumni  of  Columbia 
College,  Cuban  exiles,  the  students  of  Yale  College,  and  the 
Whig  Central  Committee,  to  all  of  whom  he  made  appro- 
priate remarks.  The  city  of  New  York  gave  him  a  banquet 
at  the  Irving  House ;  four  hundred  guests  sat  down  at  table, 
and  among  them  was  George  Bancroft.  At  the  Astor  House 
there  was  an  editorial  banquet  in  his  honor,  presided  over  by 
the  poet-editor  William  Cullen  Bryant,  which  every  one  con- 
sidered it  a  high  privilege  to  attend.  The  reading  of  a  let- 


236  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  (1851 

ter  from  "Webster,  coldly  declining  to  attend  on  account  of 
public  duties,  was  received  with  hisses  and  groans.  Toasts 
were  responded  to  by  Bancroft,  Henry  J.  Kaymond,  Parke 
Godwin,  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  and  Charles  A.  Dana.  Two 
days  after  this  banquet,  the  New  York  Democratic  Central 
Committee  presented  Kossuth  the  resolutions  which  they  had 
adopted.  They  declared  that  the  time  for  American  neutral- 
ity had  ceased,  and  promised  that "  at  the  tap  of  the  drum  one 
hundred  thousand  armed  men  will  rally  around  the  American 
standard  to  be  unfurled  on  the  field  when  the  issue  between 
freedom  and  despotism  is  to  be  decided."  A  large  meeting 
in  Plymouth  Church  raised  twelve  thousand  dollars  for  the 
Hungarian  cause,  and  a  dramatic  benefit  was  given  at  Niblo's 
Garden  for  the  fund.  An  imposing  reception  by  the  bar  of 
New  York,  and  an  afternoon  entertainment  by  the  ladies  at 
the  Metropolitan  Opera  House  were  a  fitting  close  of  the 
honors  which  had  been  showered  on  the  Hungarian  hero 
in  this  hospitable  city. 

It  was,  indeed,  a  curious  spectacle  to  see  the  descendants 
of  sober-blooded  Englishmen  and  phlegmatic  Dutchmen 
roused  to  such  a  pitch  of  enthusiasm  over  a  man  who  was 
not  the  benefactor  of  their  own  country,  and  whose  only 
title  to  fame  was  that  he  had  fought  bravely  and  acted 
wisely  in  an  unsuccessful  revolution. 

It  is  evident  that  we  were  even  then  an  excitable  people.1 


1  J.  J.  Ampere,  Promenade  en  Amgrique,  speaks  of  the  reception  of 
Kossuth  at  New  York ;  "  Je  vois  que  dans  cette  ivresse  de  New  York 
entrait  pour  beaucoup  ce  besoin  d'excitation,  de  manifestations  bruyantes, 
qui  est  le  seul  amusement  vif  de  la  multitude  dans  un  pays  ou  Ton  ne 
s1  amuse  guere.  Ce  vacarme  est  sans  consequence  et  sans  danger;  tout 
cela  se  borne,  comme  me  le  disait  un  homme  d'esprit,  a*  la"cher  la  vapeur 
('  let  out  the  steam '),  ce  qui,  comme  on  sait,  ne  cause  point  les  explosions 
de  la  machine,  mais  les  previent." — Tome  ii.  p. 53.  "The  American  is 
shrewd  and  keen ;  his  passion  seldom  obscures  his  reason ;  he  keeps  his 
head  in  moments  when  a  Frenchman,  or  an  Italian,  or  even  a  German, 
would  lose  it.  Yet  he  is  also  of  an  excitable  temper,  with  emotions  capa- 
ble of  being  quickly  and  strongly  stirred.  .  .  .  Moreover,  the  Americana 


CH.  Ill]  KOSSUTH  237 

Yet  if  we  had  gained  vivacity  in  this  electric  air  of  ours, 
what  was  occurring  at  Washington  demonstrated  that  we 
had  not  lost  the  habit  of  deliberating  wisely  before  taking  a 
resolve.  On  the  first  day  of  the  session  a  resolution  was  in- 
troduced into  the  Senate  providing  a  welcome  from  Con- 
gress to  Kossuth  on  his  arrival,  and  tendering,  in  the  name 
of  the  whole  American  people,  the  hospitalities  of  the  me- 
tropolis of  the  Union.  But  objection  was  made  to  taking 
action  of  any  official  character,  and  this  gave  rise  to  consid- 
erable discussion.  Before  a  vote  was  reached  Kossuth  ar- 
rived at  New  York.  The  project  of  greeting  him  when  he 
first  set  foot  on  our  shores  was  then  suspended  by  a  propo- 
sition to  welcome  him  at  the  capital  of  the  country.  Even 
this  simple  resolution  provoked  a  four  days'  debate,  for  by 
this  time  the  Senate  had  the  report  of  his  first  speech.  The 
notion  that  the  fixed  foreign  policy  of  this  government,  ex- 
acting non-interference  in  European  affairs,  could,  under  any 
circumstances,  be  altered  was  entertained  by  only  a  few  sen- 
ators. Yet  there  was  no  lack  of  enthusiasm.  "  There  has 
been  but  one  Washington  and  there  is  but  one  Kossuth," 
Foote  declared  in  eager  tones.  "The  great  Hungarian 
leader  will  live  in  the  brightest  pages  of  history,"  said  Cass. 
The  occasion  prompted  Sumner  to  make  his  maiden  speech. 
Kossuth  deserves  our  welcome,  he  exclaimed,  "  as  the  early, 
constant,  and  incorruptible  champion  of  the  liberal  cause 
in  Hungary."  He  is  "a  living  Wallace— a  living  Tell — 
I  had  almost  said  a  living  Washington."  Seward  spoke 
of  him  as  "  the  representative  of  the  uprising  liberties  of 
Europe."  Yet  several  senators  were  opposed  to  offering 
Kossuth  the  hospitalities  of  Congress,  unless  it  should  be  ex- 
pressly declared  in  the  resolution  that  we  did  not  intend  to 
depart  from  the  settled  policy  of  our  government.  The  dis- 
cussion generated  so  much  heat  that  one  senator  did  not 
hesitate  to  say  "  that  there  have  been  more  unpleasant  and 


like  excitement.    They  like  it  for  its  own  sake,  and  go  wherever  they 
can  find  it." — American  Commonwealth,  Bryce,  vol.  ii,  p.  191. 


238  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1802 

hard  things  said  of  Kossuth  in  this  Senate  than  have  been 
said  of  him  in  all  Europe,  except  by  the  bribed  and  hireling 
prints  of  some  of  the  despots  of  the  Old  World."  It  was, 
however,  resolved  to  give  him  a  cordial  welcome  to  the  cap- 
ital.  There  was  anxiety  in  the  State  department  in  regard 
to  his  reception.  "  It  requires  great  caution,"  wrote  Web- 
ster, "  so  to  conduct  things  here  when  Mr.  Kossuth  shall  ar- 
rive as  to  keep  clear  both  of  Scylla  and  Charybdis ;" '  and 
"  his  presence  here  will  be  quite  embarrassing.  ...  I  hope 
I  may  steer  clear  of  trouble  on  both  sides." a  Kossuth,  after 
an  enthusiastic  reception  at  Philadelphia  and  Baltimore,  ar- 
rived at  Washington  on  the  30th  of  December ;  he  was  met 
at  the  station  by  Seward  and  Shields,  of  the  Senate  commit- 
tee. A  large  crowd  awaited  his  arrival  and  greeted  him 
with  demonstrations  of  respect.  At  noon  the  Secretary  of 
State  called  upon  him.  Webster  wrote  that  Kossuth  was  a 
gentleman  "  in  appearance  and  demeanor ;  ...  he  is  hand- 
some enough  in  person,  evidently  intellectual  and  dignified, 
amiable  and  graceful  in  his  manners.  I  shall  treat  him  with 
all  personal  and  individual  respect ;  but  if  he  should  speak  to 
me  of  the  policy  of  <  intervention,'  I  shall  '  have  ears  more 
deaf  than  adders.' " 3  The  next  day  Kossuth  was  presented 
to  the  President,  and  later  in  the  week  he  dined  at  the  White 
House.4 

1  Letter  to  Haven,  Dec.  23d,  Private  Correspondence,  vol.  ii.  p.  497. 

2  Letter  to  Paige,  Dec.  25th,  ibid.,  p.  499. 

3  Letter  to  Blatchford,  Dec.  30tb<,  ibid.,  p.  501. 

*  Ampere  assisted  at  this  dinner,  and  writes:  "L&,  j'ai  gte*  t<5moin 
d'une  nonvelle  scene  de  ce  drame  de  la  venue  de  Kossuth  en  Am6rique, 
dont  j'avais  vu  &  New  York,  il  y  a  quelques  semaines,  1'exposition  si 
brillante  et  en  apparence  si  pleine  de  promesses ;  .  .  .  ni  avant,  ni  pen- 
dant, ni  apres  le  diner,  il  n'a  e"t6  fait,  a  ma  connaissance,  aucune  allusion  a 
la  cause  de  la  Hongrie.  Je  n'ai  vu  que  de  la  politesse  pour  l'homme, 
mais  nulle  expression  a  haute  voix  de  sympathie  pour  sa  cause.  .  .  . 
Kossuth,  qui  a  le  tort  d'aimer  les  costumes  de  fantaisie,  portait  une  16vite 
de  velours  noir,  et  m'a  semblfi  beaucoup  moins  imposant  dans  cette  tenue 
que  quand  il  haranguiat,  appuyfe  sur  son  grand  sabre,  dans  la  salle  de 
Castle  Garden,  &  New  York." — Promenade  en  Amgrique,  tome  ii  p.  98. 


CH.m.]  KOSSUTH  239 

Four  days  of  the  new  year  had  gone  by  before  the  much- 
canvassed  reception  of  the  Senate  took  place.  The  ceremony 
was  the  same  as  that  which  twenty-seven  years  before  had 
governed  the  welcome  to  Lafayette.  At  one  o'clock  on  the 
5th  of  January  the  doors  were  opened,  and  Governor  Kossuth, 
escorted  by  the  committee — Shields,  Seward,  and  Cass — en- 
tered  and  advanced  within  the  bar,  all  the  senators  at  the 
same  time  rising.  The  suite  of  the  honored  guest,  in  mili- 
tary uniforms,  stood  below  the  bar.  Shields  said :  "  Mr. 
President,  we  have  the  honor  to  introduce  Louis  Kossuth  to 
the  Senate  of  the  United  States."  The  presiding  officer  ad- 
dressed him :  "  Louis  Kossuth,  I  welcome  you  to  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States.  The  committee  will  conduct  you  to 
the  seat  which  I  have  caused  to  be  prepared  for  you."  He 
was  then  conducted  to  a  chair  in  front  of  the  President's 
desk ;  the  Senate,  in  order  to  give  the  senators  an  opportu- 
nity of  paying  their  respects  to  their  guest,  adjourned,  and 
they  were  individually  presented.  General  Houston  attract- 
ed special  notice.  The  presence  of  the  hero  of  San  Jacinto 
in  the  chief  council  of  the  nation  could  not  fail  to  suggest  to 
the  Hungarian  how  much  happier  than  his  own  lot  had  been 
that  of  the  Texas  liberator.  Senator  Houston  said,  in  his 
rough,  hearty  way,  "  Sir,  you  are  welcome  to  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States ;"  to  which  Kossuth  replied,  "  I  can  only 
wish  I  had  been  as  successful  as  you,  sir."  Houston  with 
ready  sympathy  rejoined,  "God  grant  that  you  may  yet 
be  so!" 

Two  days  after  this  reception,  a  banquet  was  given  to 
Kossuth  by  members  of  Congress  of  both  parties,  at  which 
Webster  made  a  noteworthy  speech.  His  allusion  to  Eng- 
land was  exceedingly  felicitous,  being  possibly  a  delicate 
reference  to  remarks  that  had  been  made  in  the  Senate, 
which  seemed  to  assume  that  all  the  political  virtue  of  the 
world  was  centred  in  the  United  States.  "  On  the  western 
coast  of  Europe,"  he  said,  "  political  light  exists.  There  is 
a  sun  in  the  political  firmament,  and  that  sun  sheds  his  light 
on  those  who  are  able  to  enjoy  it."  In  the  course  of  his 


240  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1852 

speech  he  made  a  strong  argument  for  the  independence  of 
Hungary,  based  on  her  distinctive  nationality  and  the  home- 
rule  principle. 

The  House  had  passed  without  debate  the  joint  resolution 
to  welcome  Kossuth ;  but  when  a  motion  was  made  for  the 
appointment  of  a  committee  to  introduce  him  to  the  House, 
the  different  feelings  in  regard  to  the  Hungarian  hero  were 
strikingly  manifest.  By  the  many  instrumentalities  which 
the  rules  of  the  House  put  in  their  power,  members  tried  to 
prevent  the  consideration  of  the  resolution,  and  it  was  not 
until  the  day  of  Kossuth's  arrival  at  Washington  that  the 
subject  was  fairly  brought  before  this  body.  Then  for  many 
days  the  representatives  strove  and  wrangled  over  the  ques- 
tion ;  amendments  were  offered,  counter-motions  were  made, 
until  finally,  when  the  5th  of  January  had  come,  and  it  was 
stated  that  the  Hungarian  purposed  leaving  on  the  ninth, 
the  majority  rose  in  their  might,  suspended  the  rules  and 
adopted  the  resolution.  The  form  of  reception  was  the 
same  as  in  the  Senate,  and  it  took  place  without  incident. 

Soon  afterwards  Kossuth  left  for  the  West,  and  visited  sev- 
eral cities,  where  there  was  great  curiosity  to  see  the  lion  of 
the  day;  crowds  turned  out  to  greet  him  and  showed  some 
enthusiasm,  but  it  was  patent  before  he  left  Washington  that 
his  mission  had  failed.  Indeed,  from  Jhe  moment  that  he 
avowed  his  expectations,  it  was  apparent  everywhere,  ex- 
cept in  New  York  City,  that  his  hope  for  a  prommciamento 
in  favor  of  intervention,  should  Russia  take  a  hand  here- 
after in  the  affairs  of  Hungary,  was  utterly  vain ;  and  a 
very  short  time  after  his  departure  sufficed  to  bring  the  citi- 
zens of  the  metropolis  around  to  the  opinion  of  the  rest  of 
the  country.  By  the  middle  of  January  a  correspondent 
wrote  that  the  excitement  had  wholly  died  down,  and  the 
name  of  Kossuth  was  rarely  heard  in  New  York.  One  vote 
taken  in  the  House  of  Representatives  had  positive  signifi- 
cance. An  amendment  to  the  resolution  of  welcome  had 
been  offered,  providing  that  the  committee  on  the  reception 
of  Kossuth  should  be  instructed  to  inform  him  that  the 


CH.  m.]  KOSSUTH  241 

United  States  would  not  look  with  indifference  on  the  inter- 
vention of  Kussia  against  Hungary  in  any  struggle  for  lib- 
erty she  might  hereafter  have  with  the  despotic  power  of 
Austria.  The  mover  of  this  amendment,  seeing  that  it  met 
with  no  favor,  desired  to  withdraw  it,  but  this  was  not  per- 
mitted. A  division  was  therefore  taken,  but  the  proposition 
received  only  seven  votes. 

Nor  was  Kossuth  much  more  successful  in  his  quest  for 
sinews  of  war.  At  Pittsburgh  he  complained  bitterly  that 
while  one  hundred  and  sixty  thousand  dollars  had  been 
raised,  only  thirty  thousand  dollars  remained  for  the  pur- 
chase of  muskets ;  the  rest  had  been  wasted  in  costly  ban- 
quets and  foolish  parades.  He  appealed  no  longer  for  in- 
tervention, but  for  money,  and  urged  that  the  salt-mines  of 
Hungary  would  be  ample  security  for  the  loan.  Although 
he  remained  in  the  country  until  July,  it  is  certain  that  the 
net  amount  of  the  contributions  to  his  cause  was  less  than 
one  hundred  thousand  dollars. 

The  reason  of  the  interest  taken  in  Kossuth's  visit  is  now 
plain  enough  to  be  seen,  but  at  the  time  it  was  stated  that 
the  excitement  had  been  worked  up  by  politicians  with  an 
eye  to  the  German  vote  in  the  approaching  presidential 
election.  This  view  was  not  correct.  The  movement  was 
spontaneous,  and  the  politicians  took  hold  of  it  so  as  to  keep 
in  the  popular  current.  In  the  honor  done  to  this  repre- 
sentative of  European  revolution  there  was  the  exultation 
of  the  young  republic  which  rejoiced  in  the  strength  of  a 
lusty  giant.  Two  years  previously  the  arrival  of  Kossuth 
would  have  stirred  up  but  little  enthusiasm,  for  then  the 
unhappy  sectional  controversy  which  had  threatened  dis- 
aster engrossed  the  attention  of  the  people ;  now,  however, 
it  was  felt  that  the  country  was  united  and  harmonious. 
With  sweet  forgetfulness  the  memory  of  past  danger  faded 
away,  and  a  serene  optimism  would  not  anticipate  evil. 
From  the  debate  it  was  apparent  that  members  of  Congress 
generally  thought  we  were  quite  a  match  for  Austria  and 
Kussia  combined,  although  at  the  present  moment  there 
L— 16 


242  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1852 

was  no  desire  to  put  forth  our  strength.  But  there  was 
grim  truth  in  the  rebuke  by  Clemens,  of  Alabama,  which 
reminded  certain  senators  who  were  willing  to  fight,  if  neces- 
sary, for  liberty  in  Europe  that  "  but  recently  a  bitter  sec- 
tional conflict  was  raging  in  our  midst,  which  threatened  at 
one  time  to  shatter  our  Confederacy  into  atoms;  that  the 
embers  of  that  strife  were  still  unquenched,  and  that  it  was 
the  part  of  wisdom  to  secure  internal  peace  before  we  en- 
gaged in  external  war." 

Horace  Mann  and  others  of  his  persuasion  were  mainly 
wrong  when  they  attributed  to  the  influence  of  the  slave 
power  the  opposition  to  Kossuth.  which  came  from  the 
South.1  No  one  was  a  more  enthusiastic  champion  of  the 
Hungarian  than  Senator  Foote,  a  devoted  supporter  of 
Southern  institutions.  It  was  he  who  exclaimed :  "  At  such 
a  moment,  does  it  behoove  the  American  people  to  join  the 
side  of  despotism,  or  to  stand  by  the  cause  of  freedom  ?  We 
must  do  one  or  the  other.  We  cannot  avoid,  the  solemn 
alternative  presented.  .  .  .  Those  who  are  not  for  freedom 
are  for  slavery."  *  Hale  tried  to  drag  the  slavery  question 
into  the  debate,  but  his  political  friends  frowned  upon  his 
endeavor ;  for  Seward  and  Cass,  Sumner  and  Shields,  went 
hand  in  hand  in  the  affair.  In  the  House,  a  member  from 
North  Carolina  charged  that  the  abolitionists  had  taken  the 
lead  in  the  matter,  and,  while  this  accusation  added  some- 
what to  the  heat  of  the  debate,  there  is  no  doubt  that  most 
of  those  who  objected  to  conferring  the  proposed  honor  on 
Kossuth  did  so  because  he  had  assailed  the  non-intervention 
doctrine  of  Washington. 

The  heroic  play  which  began  in  New  York  changed  into 
a  farce  when  Congress  came  to  audit  the  hotel  bill  of  the 
Hungarian  governor  and  his  suite.  The  bill,  amounting  to 
nearly  four  thousand  six  hundred  dollars,  was  considered 
by  the  Senate  enormous  in  its  magnitude.  The  senators 


1  Life  of  Horace  Mann,  p.  356. 

*  Remarks  in  Senate,  Dec.  3d,  1851. 


CH.  HI.]  THE  FINALITY  OF  THE  COMPROMISE  243 

did  not  pry  into  the  items ;  but  the  House  had  no  such  re- 
serve, and  before  passing  it  they  examined  narrowly  the 
itemized  statement ;  whence  it  appeared  that  the  apartments 
had  been  large  and  luxurious,  and  that  champagne,  madeira, 
and  sherry  had  flowed  freely.  Kossuth  was  defended  from 
all  participation  in  debauchery,  it  being  asserted  that  he 
was  abstemious  in  all  his  habits  except  smoking,  and  that, 
while  he  sometimes  drank  claret  at  dinner,  he  was  moderate 
in  the  pleasures  of  the  table.1 

.  Early  in  the  session  a  resolution  was  introduced  into  the 
Senate  by  Foote  which  declared  that  the  compromise  meas- 
ures were  a  definite  adjustment  of  the  distracting  questions 
growing  out  of  slavery.  This  occasioned  a  rambling  dis- 
cussion, but  the  proposition  was  never  brought  to  a  vote. 
On  the  5th  day  of  April  a  division  in  the  House  was  at- 
tained on  a  resolution  similar  in  purport.  One  hundred  and 
three  members  voted  that  the  compromise  should  be  regard- 
ed as  a  permanent  settlement,  and  seventy -four  voted  against 
such  a  declaration.  The  nays  were  made  up  of  twenty-six 
Northern  Democrats,3  twenty-eight  Northern  Whigs,  nine- 
teen Southern  Democrats,  and  one  Southern  Whig,  viz., 
Clingman.  It  was  noticeable  that,  while  every  representa- 
tive present  from  South  Carolina  voted  against  the  resolu- 
tion, every  representative  from  Mississippi  but  one  voted 
for  it ;  the  delegation  from  both  States  were  all  Democrats. 
Twenty  Southern  and  only  seven  Northern  Whigs  voted  in 
the  affirmative.  Many  of  the  latter  were  absent. 

It  is  now  my  intention  to  narrate  the  proceedings  of  the 
national  conventions  of  the  Democratic  and  Whig  parties, 


1  My  authorities  for  this  relation  are  the  New  York  Tribune  and  the 
National  Intelligencer.  Both  of  these  newspapers  give  copious  extracts 
from  contemporary  journals ;  the  debates  in  the  Senate  and  House,  vol. 
xxiv.,  Congressional  Globe;  Life  of  Webster,  Curtis,  vol.  ii.;  Webster's 
Private  Correspondence,  vol.  ii.  See  also  Promenade  en  Ame'rique,  Am- 
pere, tome  i.  p.  370.  The  curious  may  find  the  itemized  bill  in  Congres- 
sional Globe,  vol.  xxiv.  p.  1692. 

*  In  these  are  included  Rantoul  and  Durkee,  Free-soilers. 


244  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1852 

two  bodies  which  assembled  with  a  fresher  mandate  from 
the  people  than  had  the  representatives  in  Congress.  The 
Democratic  convention  was  held  on  June  1st  at  Baltimore, 
and  the  prominent  candidates  were  Cass,  Douglas,  Buchanan, 
and  Marcy.  Cass  was  now  nearly  seventy  years  old,  but  tem- 
perate habits  and  a  regular  life  had  preserved  his  constitu- 
tional vigor.  A  son  of  New  England,  his  education  had  been 
mainly  acquired  in  the  academy  of  Exeter,  N.  II.,  his  native 
place.  In  early  life  he  came  West,  and  as  governor  of  Michi- 
gan territory  from  1813  to  1831  his  administration  of  affairs 
was  marked  with  intelligence  and  energy.1  His  experience 
during  this  term  of  office  with  the  British  stationed  in  Canada, 
who  constantly  incited  the  Indians  to  wage  war  on  the  set- 
tlers of  the  Northwest,  caused  him  to  imbibe  a  hatred  of  Eng- 
land which  never  left  him,  and  whose  influence  is  traceable 
throughout  his  public  career.  He  held  the  war  portfolio 
under  Jackson,  later  was  Minister  to  France,  and  had  now 
for  several  years  represented  Michigan  in  the  Senate.  His 
anglophobia  and  his  readiness  to  assert  vigorous  principles 
of  American  nationality  made  him  popular  in  the  North- 
west. He  tried  a  solution  of  the  slavery  question  in  the 
Nicholson  letter,  written  a  few  months  before  he  was  select- 
ed as  the  candidate  of  the  Democratic  party  in  1848.  In 
this  letter  he  invented  the  doctrine  which  afterwards  became 
widely  known  as  the  doctrine  of  popular  sovereignty.  He 
maintained  that  Congress  should  let  the  people  of  the  terri- 
tories regulate  their  internal  concerns  in  their  own  way ; 
and  that  in  regard  to  slavery  the  territories  should  be  put 
upon  the  same  basis  as  the  States. 

Douglas  was  only  thirty -nine  years  old:  remarkably 
young  to  aspire  to  the  highest  office  in  the  State.  Clay  had 
reached  the  age  of  forty-seven  when  he  became  a  candidate 
for  the  presidency,  and  "Webster  was  forty-eight  when  he 


1  See  a  paper  read  by  Prof.  A.  C.  McLaughlin  before  the  American  His- 
torical Association,  Dec.,  1888,  "The  Influence  of  Governor  Cass  on  the 
Development  of  the  Northwest ;"  see  also  his  Life  of  Cass. 


OH.ni]  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS  245 

began  to  dream  that  it  might  be  his  lot  to  reach  the  desired 
goal.  Douglas  was  a  son  of  New  England,  and,  like  many 
New  England  boys,  worked  on  a  farm  in  the  summer  and 
attended  school  in  the  winter.  By  the  time  he  was  twenty, 
he  had  wrought  for  two  years  at  a  trade,  had  completed  the 
classical  course  at  an  academy,  and  had  begun  the  study  of 
law.  He  then  went  to  Illinois,  and  before  he  had  attained 
his  majority  was  admitted  to  the  bar ;  he  became  a  member 
of  the  legislature  at  twenty  -  three,  a  Supreme  judge  at 
twenty-eight,  a  representative  in  Congress  at  thirty,  and  a 
senator  at  thirty-three. 

Douglas's  first  political  speech  gained  him  the  title  of 
the  "Little  Giant;"  the  name  was  intended  to  imply  the 
union  of  small  physical  with  great  intellectual  stature.  Yet 
he  was  not  a  student  of  books,  although  a  close  observer  of 
men.  He  lacked  refinement  of  manner ;  was  careless  of  his 
personal  appearance,  and  had  none  of  the  art  and  grace  that 
go  to  make  up  the  cultivated  orator.  John  Quincy  Adams 
was  shocked  at  his  appearance  in  the  House,  where,  as  the 
celebrated  diary  records,  in  making  a  speech  he  raved,  roar- 
ed, and  lashed  himself  into  a  heat  with  convulsed  face  and 
frantic  gesticulation.  "  In  the  midst  of  his  roaring,  to  save 
himself  from  choking,  he  stripped  off  and  cast  away  his  cra- 
vat, unbuttoned  his  waistcoat,  and  had  the  air  and  aspect  of 
a  half-naked  pugilist."  *  But  Douglas  took  on  quickly  the 
character  of  his  surroundings,  and  in  Washington  society  he 
soon  learned  the  ease  of  a  gentleman  and  acquired  the  bear- 
ing of  a  man  of  the  world.  He  was  a  great  friend  to  the 
material  development  of  the  West,  and  especially  of  his 
own  State,  having  broad  views  of  the  future  growth  of  his 
section  of  country.*  He  vied  with  Cass  in  his  dislike  of 


1  Memoirs  of  J.  Q.  Adams,  vol.  xi.  p.  510. 

*  "  M.  Douglas  est  un  des  hommes  dans  le  congres  dont  le  discours  et 
1'aspect  m'ont  le  plus  frapp6.  Petit,  noir,  trapu,  sa  parole  est  pleine  de 
nerf,  son  action  simple  et  forte.  ...  II  me  parait  un  des  hommes  de  ce 
pays  qui  ont  le  plus  d'avenir ;  il  pourra  arriver  au  pouvoir  quand  1'Ouest, 


246  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1861 

England.  He  believed  in  the  manifest  destiny  of  the  United 
States.  He  thought  that  conditions  might  arise  under  which 
it  would  become  our  bounden  duty  to  acquire  Cuba,  Mexico, 
and  Central  America.  He  was  called  the  representative  of 
young  America,  and  his  supporters  antagonized  Cass  as  the 
candidate  of  old-fogy  ism.  His  adherents  were  aggressive, 
and  for  months  had  made  a  vigorous  canvass  on  his  behalf. 
A  Whig  journal  ventured  to  remind  Douglas  that  vaulting 
ambition  overleaps  itself,  but  added,  "  Perhaps  the  little 
judge  never  read  Shakespeare,  and  does  not  think  of  this." ' 

James  Buchanan  was  born  in  Pennsylvania  in  1791.  He 
had  a  fair  school  and  college  education,  studied  law,  soon  ac- 
quired a  taste  for  politics,  was  sent  to  the  legislature,  served 
as  representative  in  Congress  ten  years,  and  was  elected 
three  times  senator.  In  the  Senate  he  distinguished  him- 
self as  an  ardent  supporter  of  President  Jackson.  He  was 
Secretary  of  State  under  Polk,  but  since  the  close  of  that 
administration  had  remained  in  private  life.  He  was  a  gen- 
tleman of  refinement  and  of  courtly  manners.2 

Marcy  was  a  shrewd  New  York  politician,  the  author  of 
the  phrase  "  To  the  victors  belong  the  spoils." 3  He  had 
been  judge,  United  States  senator,  and  three  times  govern- 
or. He  held  the  war  portfolio  under  Polk,  but  his  con- 
duct of  the  office  had  not  added  to  his  reputation,  for  it 
had  galled  the  administration  to  have  the  signal  victories 
of  the  Mexican  war  won  by  Whig  generals,  and  it  was  cur- 
rently believed  that  the  War  Minister  had  shared  in  the 


qui  n'y  a  pas  encore  <5te  represente,  voudra  &  son  tour  avoir  son  president. 
L'esprit  de  M.  Douglas  me  semble,  comme  sa  parole,  vigoureux,  ardent, 
ce  qui  en  fait  un  repre"sentant  tres-fidele  des  populations  energiques  qui 
grandissent  entre  la  for6t  et  la  prairie." — Promenade  en  Am6rique,  J.  J. 
Ampere,  tome  ii.  p.  56. 

1  Pike,  in  New  York  Tribune,  cited  by  Von  Hoist,  vol.  iv.  p.  165.  In 
this  characterization  of  Douglas  I  have  used  the  Lives  of  Douglas  by 
Sheahan  and  by  H.  M.  Flint.  *  See  Life  of  Buchanan,  Curtis. 

8  For  the  speech  in  which  Marcy  used  this  expression,  see  The  Lives 
of  the  Governors  of  New  York,  p.  564. 


CH.  III.]  DEMOCRATIC  NATIONAL  CONVENTION  247 

endeavor  to  thwart  some  of  the  plans  of  Scott  and  Taylor. 
Always  an  honored  citizen  of  New  York,  it  has  seemed  fit- 
ting that  the  highest  mountain-peak  in  the  State  by  bearing 
his  name  should  serve  as  a  monument  to  his  memory. 

The  hall  in  which  the  convention  met  at  Baltimore  was 
one  of  the  largest  in  the  country ;  it  could  accommodate 
five  thousand  people.  There  was  then  nothing  like  the  out- 
side pressure  on  the  delegates  which  is  seen  now  at  every 
one  of  these  national  conventions  when  the  nomination  is 
contested ;  but  the  city  thronged  with  people,  and  it  was 
apparent  that  the  friends  of  Douglas  had  mustered  in  full 
force.  On  the  evening  of  the  first  day  an  immense  meet- 
ing took  place  in  Monument  Square,  where  an  enthusiastic 
crowd  listened  to  eloquent  speakers.  The  first  two  days  of 
the  convention  were  occupied  in  organization  and  in  confir- 
mation of  the  two-thirds  rule.  It  was  decided  to  make  the 
nomination  before  the  adoption  of  the  platform.  This  action 
did  not  by  any  means  portend  differences  in  agreeing  upon  a 
declaration  of  principles,  but  rather  showed  the  desire  of  del- 
egates to  settle  the  important  affair  first.  Owing  to  the 
confident  feeling  that  this  year's  nomination  was  equivalent 
to  an  election,  the  contest  became  exceedingly  animated. 

A  year  previous  Clay  had  serious  doubts  of  the  success 
of  his  own  party,  and,  regarding  it  as  nearly  certain  that  a 
Democrat  would  be  elected  in  1852,  he  hoped  that  the  nom- 
ination would  fall  to  Cass,  whom  he  considered  quite  as  able 
as  Buchanan,  and  much  more  honest  and  sincere.1 

On  the  first  ballot  Cass  had  116,  Buchanan  93,  Marcy 
27,  Douglas  20,  and  all  the  other  candidates  25  votes.  The 
number  necessary  to  a  choice  was  188.  Cass  had  75  from 
the  free,  and  41  from  the  slave,  States ;  Buchanan,  32  from 
the  free,  and  61  from  the  slave,  States ;  while  Douglas  had 
only  two  votes  from  the  South.  The  interest  centred  in 
these  three  candidates.  Their  names  and  the  announce- 
ment of  their  votes  never  failed  to  bring  prolonged  ap- 


1  Private  Correspondence,  p.  619. 


248  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1851 

plause.  The  voting  began  on  the  third  day  of  the  conven- 
tion, and  seventeen  ballots  were  that  day  taken.  Douglas 
gained  considerably  at  the  expense  of  Cass,  but  it  looked 
improbable  that  any  of  the  three  favorites  could  secure  the 
nomination,  which  seemed  likely  to  go  to  a  dark  horse. 
The  merits  of  several  others  were  canvassed,  and  among 
them  Franklin  Pierce.  On  the  fourth  day  Douglas  stead- 
ily increased  until  the  twenty-ninth  ballot,  when  the  votes 
were :  for  Cass,  27 ;  for  Buchanan,  93 ;  for  Douglas,  91 ;  and 
for  no  other  candidate  more  than  26.  On  the  morning  of 
the  fifth  day,  on  the  call  of  the  States  for  the  thirty-fourth 
ballot,  the  Virginia  delegation  retired  for  consultation,  and 
coming  back  cast  the  fifteen  votes  of  their  State  for  Daniel 
S.  Dickinson,  of  New  York.  This  was  received  with  favor. 

Dickinson  was  a  delegate ;  he  immediately  took  the  floor 
and  said :  "  I  came  here  not  with  instructions,  but  with  ex- 
pectations stronger  than  instructions,  that  I  would  vote  for 
and  endeavor  to  procure  the  nomination  of  that  distinguish- 
ed citizen  and  statesman,  General  Lewis  Cass."  After  say- 
ing he  highly  appreciated  the  compliment  paid  him  by  "the 
land  of  Presidents,  the  Ancient  Dominion,"  he  declared,  em- 
phatically :  "  I  could  not  consent  to  a  nomination  here  with- 
out incurring  the  imputation  of  unfaithfully  executing  the 
trust  committed  to  me  by  my  constituents — without  turning 
my  back  on  an  old  and  valued  friend.  Nothing  that  could 
be  offered  me— not  even  the  highest  position  in  the  govern- 
ment, the  office  of  President  of  the  United  States — could 
compensate  me  for  such  a  desertion  of  my  trust."  * 

On  the  next  ballot,  Virginia  cast  her  fifteen  votes  for 
Franklin  Pierce,  and  at  that  time  Cass  reached  his  greatest 
strength,  receiving  131.  As  the  weary  round  of  balloting 
continued,  Pierce  gained  slowly,  until,  on  the  forty-eighth 
trial,  he  received  55,  while  Cass  had  73,  Buchanan  28,  Douglas 
33,  and  Marcy  90.  On  the  forty-ninth  ballot  there  was  a 
stampede  to  Pierce,  who  received  282  votes  to  6  for  all  oth- 


1  Letters  and  Speeches,  Dickinson,  vol.  i.  p.  370. 


CH.IIL]  DEMOCRATIC   PLATFORM  249 

ers.  The  convention  nominated  William  R.  King,  of  Ala- 
bama, for  Yice  -  President,  and  then  adopted  a  platform. 
Its  vital  declarations  were  :  "  The  Democratic  party  of  the 
Union  .  .  .  will  abide  by,  and  adhere  to,  a  faithful  exe- 
cution of  the  acts  known  as  the  compromise  measures 
settled  by  the  last  Congress — the  act  for  reclaiming  fugi- 
tives from  service  or  labor  included ;  which  act,  being 
designed  to  carry  out  an  express  provision  of  the  Con- 
stitution, cannot  with  fidelity  thereto  be  repealed,  nor  so 
changed  as  to  destroy  or  impair  its  efficiency.  The  Dem- 
ocratic party  will  resist  all  attempts  at  renewing  in  Con- 
gress, or  out  of  it,  the  agitation  of  the  slavery  question, 
under  whatever  shape  or  color  the  attempt  may  be  made." 

The  platform  was  adopted  with  but  few  dissenting  voices. 
When  the  resolution  endorsing  the  compromise  measures 
was  read,  applause  resounded  from  all  sides;  many  dele- 
gates demanded  its  repetition ;  it  was  read  over  again,  and 
a  wild  outburst  of  enthusiasm  followed.  There  was  no 
question  that  while  the  delegates  had  differed  widely  in 
regard  to  men,  they  were  at  one  in  desiring  this  resolution, 
a  vital  and  popular  article  of  Democratic  faith.1 

Franklin  Pierce,  of  New  Hampshire,  was  now  in  his  forty- 
eighth  year.  He  had  in  his  boyhood  drunk  in  patriotic 
principles  from  his  father,  an  old  Revolutionary  soldier,  at 
whose  hearthstone  the  fellow- veterans  were  always  wel- 
come, and  whose  greatest  joy  was  to  revive  in  common  with 
these  the  sentiment*  which  had  animated  them  in  1776. 
Pierce  was  graduated  from  Bowdoin  College,  Maine,  and  af- 
terwards became  a  lawyer.  The  prominent  position  which 
his  father  occupied  in  the  Democratic  party  in  the  State  was 
a  help  to  the  son's  political  advancement.  He  served  in  the 
legislature  four  years,  went  to  Congress  as  representative  at 
twenty-nine,  and  became  United  States  senator  at  thirty- 
three,  being  the  youngest  man  in  the  Senate.  He  resigned 


1  New  York  Tribune;  Presidential  Elections,  Stan  wood  ;  Life  of  Pierce, 
Hawthorne ;  Life  of  Pierce,  Bartlett. 


250  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1852 

before  the  expiration  of  his  term,  and,  coming  home,  d& 
voted  himself  with  diligence  to  the  practice  of  his  profes. 
sion.  He  was  a  good  lawyer  and  a  persuasive  advocate 
before  a  jury.  He  declined  the  position  of  Attorney-Gen- 
eral offered  him  by  Polk,  the  appointment  of  United  States 
senator,  and  the  nomination  for  governor  by  his  own  polit- 
ical party.  He  enlisted  as  a  private  soon  after  the  out- 
break of  the  Mexican  war,  but,  before  he  went  to  Mexico, 
was  commissioned  as  brigadier-general,  and  served  under 
Scott  with  bravery  and  credit.  He  was  a  strong  supporter 
of  the  compromise  measures.  An  eloquent  political  speaker, 
graceful  and  attractive  in  manner,  his  integrity  was  above 
suspicion,  and  he  was  also  deeply  religious.  He  had  not  the 
knack  of  making  money,  and  the  fact  received  favorable 
mention  that  while  long  in  public  life,  and  later  enjoying 
a  good  income  from  his  profession,  he  had  not  accumulated 
ten  thousand  dollars. 

Such  was  the  man  who  had  been  chosen  by  the  reunited 
Democratic  party  to  lead  it  on  to  assured  victory.  It  could 
only  be  said  that  he  was  a  respectable  lawyer,  politician, 
and  general,  for  he  had  tried  all  three  callings,  and  in  none 
of  them  had  he  reached  distinction.  There  can  be  no  bet- 
ter commentary  on  the  fact  that  he  was  not  a  man  of  mark 
than  the  campaign  biography  written  by  his  life-long  friend, 
Nathaniel  Hawthorne.  The  gifted  author,  who  had  woven 
entrancing  tales  out  of  airy  nothings,  failed,  when  he  had  his 
bosom  friend  and  a  future  President  for  a  subject,  to  make 
an  interesting  narrative.  The  most  graceful  pen  in  Amer- 
ica, inspired  by  the  truest  friendship,  labored  painfully  in 
the  vain  endeavor  to  show  that  his  hero  had  a  title  to  great- 
ness ;  and  the  author,  conscious  that  his  book  was  not  valu- 
able, never  consented  to  have  the  "  Life  of  Pierce"  included 
in  a  collected  edition  of  his  works.1 

Yet  the  book,  in  truthfulness  and  sincerity,  was  a  model  for 
a  campaign  life.  Hawthorne  would  not  set  down  one  word 


See  the  New  York  Critic,  Sept.  28th  and  Nov.  23d,  1-889. 


CH.  HI.]  CHARACTER  OF  PIERCE  251 

that  he  did  not  believe  absolutely  true.  Pierce  evidently 
wished  to  appear  before  the  public  in  his  real  character,  for 
otherwise,  knowing  this  quality  of  honesty  in  his  friend,  he 
would  not  have  requested  Hawthorne  to  write  the  biog- 
raphy, but  would  have  been  content  with  the  fulsome  pane- 
gyric that  had  already  appeared.  The  author  in  his  preface 
apologizes  for  coming  before  the  public  in  a  new  occupa- 
tion ;  but  "  when  a  friend,  dear  to  him  almost  from  boyish 
days,  stands  up  before  his  country,  misrepresented  by  indis- 
criminate abuse  on  the  one  hand,  and  by  aimless  praise  on 
the  other,"  it  is  quite  proper  "  that  he  should  be  sketched 
by  one  who  has  had  opportunities  of  knowing  him  well,  and 
who  is  certainly  inclined  to  tell  the  truth."  The  idea  one 
gets  of  Pierce  from  the  little  book  of  one  hundred  and  forty 
pages  is  that  he  was  a  gentleman  of  truth  and  honor,  and 
warmly  loved  his  family,  his  State,  and  his  country.  Having 
the  inward  feelings  of  a  gentleman,  he  lacked  not  the  ex- 
ternal accomplishments ;  his  fine  physical  appearance  was 
graced  by  charming  manners.1  It  is  quite  certain  that 
Pierce  did  not  desire  the  nomination ;  even  if  his  sincerity 
in  his  letter  of  January  12th  be  doubted,  the  statement  of 
Hawthorne  is  conclusive.  It  is  possible  he  shrank  from 
public  life  on  account  of  an  unfortunate  weakness,  or  that 
he  did  not  wish  to  expose  the  feeble  health  of  his  wife  to 
the  social  demands  entailed  by  the  position.3 

The  nomination  of  Pierce  was  a  complete  surprise  to  the 
country.  With  the  mass  of  the  Democratic  party,  astonish- 
ment was  mixed  with  indignation  that  the  leaders  who  had 
borne  the  brunt  of  partisan  conflict  should  be  passed  over 
for  one  whose  history  must  be  attentively  studied,  in  order 
to  know  what  he  had  done  to  merit  the  great  honor.  Yet 
the  nomination  was  not  the  spontaneous  affair  which  it 


1  See  Life  of  Pierce,  Hawthorne ;  Hawthorne  and  his  Wife,  Julian  Haw- 
thorne, vol.  i. ;  Life  of  Pierce,  Bartlett ;  Memoir  of  J.  Q.  Adams,  vol.  ix. 
p.  103;  Memoir  of  Jefferson  Davis,  by  his  Wife,  vol.  i.  p.  541. 

*  See  Memories  of  Many  Men,  M.  B.  Field,  p.  158. 


252  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1861 

seemed,  for  the  candidature  of  Pierce  had  been  carefully 
nursed  and  his  interests  were  in  competent  hands.  The 
idea  of  putting  him  forward  originated  early  in  the  year 
among  the  New  England  Democrats,  who  deemed  it  quite 
likely  that  Cass,  Douglas,  and  Buchanan  would  fail  to  se- 
cure the  coveted  prize.  The  favorite  son  of  New  Hamp- 
shire was  eligible,  as  the  State  had  been  steadfastly  Demo- 
cratic, and  Pierce  was  undoubtedly  the  most  available  man 
in  New  England.  Several  conferences  were  held  to  decide 
upon  a  plan  of  action,  and  it  was  determined  that  New 
Hampshire  should  not  present  his  name  nor  vote  for  him 
until  some  other  State  had  started  the  movement.1  Pierce 
was  privy  to  much  of  this  negotiation,  and  it  is  said  that 
the  delicate  matter  of  his  excessive  conviviality  was  talked 
over  with  him,  and  that  he  promised  to  walk  circumspectly 
should  he  become  President.  At  all  events,  a  letter  written 
by  him  a  few  days  before  the  convention  shows  a  change 
of  feeling  from  his  expression  of  January  in  regard  to  the 
nomination  ;a  and  if  his  personal  objections  still  remained, 
they  were  overruled  in  the  interest  of  the  New  Hampshire 
and  New  England  Democracy.  Pierce  promptly  accepted 
the  nomination,  "  upon  the  platform  adopted  by  the  con- 
vention, not  because  this  is  expected  of  me  as  a  candidate, 
but  because  the  principles  it  embraces  command  the  appro- 
bation of  my  judgment,  and  with  them  I  believe  I  can  safely 
say  there  has  been  no  word  nor  act  of  my  life  in  conflict."  * 
The  "Whig  convention  met  at  Baltimore  June  16th,  in 
the  same  building  that  the  Democrats  had  used,  and  it  was 
noticed  that  greater  taste  had  presided  over  the  decoration 
of  the  hall  than  two  weeks  before.  Among  the  delegates 


1  Account  of  Edmund  Burke,  one  of  the  editors  of  the  Washington 
Union,  of  the  events  that  led  to  the  nomination  of  Pierce,  cited  by  the 
New  York  Tribune  of  Nov.  28th,  1853,  from  the  National  Era.  The  Bos- 
ton Atlas  said,  June  7th,  1852,  that,  while  Pierce's  nomination  would  sur- 
prise the  country,  it  was  not  wholly  a  surprise  to  many  in  the  secrets  of 
the  Democratic  party ;  also  conversation  with  J.  W.  Bradbury. 

•  Life  of  Pierce,  Bartlett,  p.  247.  '  Ibid.,  p.  258. 


CH.  HI.]  THE  WHIG  NATIONAL  CONVENTION  253 

were  many  able  and  earnest  men.  Choate  and  Ashmun,  of 
Massachusetts,  Dayton,  of  New  Jersey,  and  Clayton,  of 
Delaware,  were  well  known;  and  among  those  who  after- 
wards gained  distinction  were  Fessenden,  of  Maine,  Dawes, 
of  Massachusetts,  Evarts,  of  New  York,  Sherman,  of  Ohio, 
and  Baker,  of  Illinois. 

The  candidates  for  the  presidential  nomination  were  Web- 
ster, Fillmore,  and  General  Scott ;  but  the  delegates  differed 
in  regard  to  the  platform  as  well  as  in  their  preferences  for 
men,  and  whether  the  Fugitive  Slave  law  should  be  de- 
clared a  finality  was  almost  as  important  a  question  as  who 
should  be  the  nominee.  There  were  more  strangers  in  the 
city  than  at  the  time  of  the  Democratic  convention,  and 
the  outside  pressure  in  favor  of  Webster  was  strong ;  but 
it  was  apparent  to  cool  observers  that  the  chances  of  suc- 
cess were  for  Scott.  Fillmore  had  a  large  number  of  dele- 
gates pledged  to  him,  for  his  friends  had  used  unsparingly 
in  his  favor  the  patronage  of  the  government,  yet  had  ef- 
fected little  at  the  North ;  his  supporters  were  almost  en- 
tirely from  the  South,  where  he  was,  moreover,  popular  on 
account  of  his  vigorous  execution  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  act. 
Clay,  likewise,  had  declared  for  Fillmore.1  Constant  de- 
monstrations in  favor  of  each  of  the  three  candidates  were 
made  in  the  form  of  processions  headed  by  noisy  bands, 
and  evening  meetings  addressed  by  eulogistic  orators.  The 
leaders  of  the  part}^  and  managers  of  the  several  candidates 
were  constantly  in  conference,  seeking  to  win  outside  sup- 
port for  their  man. 

The  platform  which  was  submitted  on  Friday,  the  third 
day  of  the  convention,  had  the  approval  of  the  delegates 
from  the  South,  of  Webster's  friends,  and  of  Webster  him- 
self.'  The  important  resolution  declared  that  the  com- 
promise acts, "  the  act  known  as  the  Fugitive  Slave  law  in- 
cluded, are  received  and  acquiesced  in  by  the  Whig  party  of 


1  Private  Correspondence,  p.  628. 

1  See  War  between  the  States,  A.  H.  Stephens,  vol.  ii.  p.  237. 


254  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1851 

the  United  States  as  a  settlement  in  principle  and  substance 
of  the  dangerous  and  exciting  questions  which  they  em- 
brace. .  .  .  We  insist  upon  their  strict  enforcement  .  .  .  and 
we  deprecate  all  further  agitation  of  the  question  thus  set- 
tled." Rufus  Choate  rose  to  advocate  this  resolution.  His 
appearance  was  striking ;  tall,  thin,  of  a  rich  olive  complex- 
ion, his  face  was  rather  that  of  an  Oriental  than  an  Ameri- 
can. Raven  locks  hanging  over  a  broad  forehead,  and  pierc- 
ing dark  eyes,  complete  the  picture.  He  had  represented 
Massachusetts  in  the  Senate,  but  his  greatest  triumphs  had 
been  won  in  the  forum.  His  speech  this  day  was  the  first 
example  of  that  brilliant  convention-oratory  which  animates 
and  excites  the  hearers,  and  its  beauty  and  power  may  still 
be  felt  when  the  issue  that  inspired  this  impassioned  oration 
is  dead.  He  said :  "  Why  should  we  not  engage  ourselves 
to  the  finality  of  the  entire  series  of  measures  of  compro- 
mise ? .  .  .  The  American  people  know,  by  every  kind  and  de- 
gree of  evidence  by  which  such  a  truth  ever  can  be  known, 
that  these  measures,  in  the  crisis  of  their  time,  saved  this 
nation.  I  thank  God  for  the  civil  courage  which,  at  the 
hazard  of  all  things  dearest  in  life,  dared  to  pass  and  defend 
them,  and  '  has  taken  no  step  backward.'  I  rejoice  that  the 
healthy  morality  of  the  country,  with  an  instructed  con- 
science, void  of  offence  towards  God  and  man,  has  accepted 
them.  Extremists  denounce  all  compromises  ever.  Alas! 
do  they  remember  such  is  the  condition  of  humanity  that 
the  noblest  politics  are  but  a  compromise,  an  approximation 
— a  type — a  shadow  of  good  things — the  buying  of  great 
blessings  at  great  prices  ?  Do  they  forget  that  the  Union 
is  a  compromise,  the  Constitution — social  life — that  the  har- 
mony of  the  universe  is  but  the  music  of  compromise,  by 
which  the  antagonisms  of  the  infinite  Nature  are  composed 
and  reconciled?  Let  him  who  doubts — if  such  there  be — 
whether  it  were  wise  to  pass  these  measures,  look  back 
and  recall  with  what  instantaneous  and  mighty  charm  they 
calmed  the  madness  and  anxiety  of  the  hour !  How  every 
countenance,  everywhere,  brightened  and  elevated  itself! 


CH.  HI.]  CHOATE'S  SPEECH  255 

How,  in  a  moment,  the  interrupted  and  parted  currents  of 
fraternal  feeling  reunited !  Sir,  the  people  came  together 
again  as  when,  in  the  old  Roman  history,  the  tribes  de- 
scended from  the  mount  of  Secession  —  the  great  compro- 
mise of  that  Constitution  achieved — and  flowed  together  be- 
hind the  eagle  into  one  mighty  host  of  reconciled  races  for 
the  conquest  of  the  world.  Well,  if  it  were  necessary  to 
adopt  these  measures,  is  it  not  necessary  to  continue  them  ? 
. . .  Why  not,  then,  declare  the  doctrine  of  their  permanence  ? 
In  the  language  of  Daniel  Webster, '  Why  delay  the  declar- 
ation? Sink  or  swim,  live  or  die,  survive  or  perish,  I  am 
for  it.'"1 

Few  Americans  have  surpassed  Choate  in  burning  elo- 
quence. He  was  a  scholar,  a  student  of  words,  and  a  mas- 
ter of  language.  The  exuberance  of  his  vocabulary  was 
poured  out  through  a  voice  of  marvellous  richness ;  dra- 
matic gestures  gave  a  point  to  his  words,  and  he  swayed 
that  great  audience  as  a  reed  is  shaken  with  the  wind. 
The  enthusiastic  and  excited  demonstrations  of  delight  as 
Choate  sat  down  displeased  Botts,  of  Virginia,  who  was 
for  Scott,  and  he  took  the  orator  to  task  for  the  attempt 
to  excite  enthusiasm  for  a  particular  candidate,  when  the 
ostensible  object  was  to  advocate  the  platform.  This  gave 
Choate  the  opportunity  to  name  his  candidate  in  a  most 
felicitous  way :  "  Ah,  sir,"  he  said, "  what  a  reputation  that 
must  be,  what  a  patriotism  that  must  be,  what  a  long  and 
brilliant  series  of  public  services  that  must  be,  when  you 
cannot  mention  a  measure  of  utility  like  this  but  every  eye 
spontaneously  turns  to,  and  every  voice  spontaneously  ut- 
ters, that  great  name  of  Daniel  Webster !" a  If  a  vivid  and 
appropriate  speech  could  have  changed  the  tide  of  that  con- 
vention, Choate  would  have  been  rewarded  by  the  success 
of  the  man  whom  he  venerated  and  loved.  A  delegate 
from  Ohio  objected  to  the  crucial  resolution,  and  he  spoke 
for  an  influential  body  of  delegates,  but  the  platform  as  a 


i  Memoir  of  Ruftis  Choate,  Brown,  p.  270.  •  Ibid.,  p.  277. 


256  HLLH3KRW3  ADMINIBTRITION'  [185> 

whole  was  adopted  "by  a  vote  of  227  to  66.  The  nays  were 
all  from  the  North,  and  all  were  supporters  of  Scott. 

The  convention  was  now  ready  to  ballot.  Fillmore  and 
Webster  were  of  course  in  full  sympathy  with  the  platform, 
and  it  now  became  an  important  question — was  Scott  satis- 
fied with  the  Fugitive  Slave  law  ?  He  was  the  candidate  of 
the  Seward  Whigs,  and  many  strong  anti-slavery  men  were 
enthusiastic  in  his  favor ;  yet  to  be  nominated  he  must  have 
Southern  votes,  and  carry  Southern  States  to  be  elected. 
Goaded  to  it  by  an  insinuation  of  Choate,  Botts,  before  the 
vote  on  the  platform  was  taken,  produced  a  letter  from  Scott 
which  could  be  interpreted  to  mean  that  he  was  a  strong 
friend  of  the  compromise  measures. 

On  the  first  ballot  Fillmore  had  133,  Scott  131,  and  Web- 
ster 29  votes.  Webster  had  votes  from  all  the  JSTew  Eng- 
land States  except  Maine,  and  six  votes  outside  of  New 
England ;  but  from  the  South,  none.1  Fillmore  received  all 
the  votes  from  the  South  except  one  given  to  Scott  by  John 
Minor  Botts,  of  Virginia.  Scott  had  all  the  votes  from  the 
North  except  those  given  to  Webster  and  sixteen  to  Fill- 
more.3  For  fifty  ballots  there  was  no  material  change; 
thirty-two  votes  were  the  highest  number  Webster  reached. 
On  the  fiftieth  ballot,  Southern  votes  began  to  go  to  Scott, 
and  on  the  fifty-third  he  had  enough  of  them  to  secure  the 
nomination,  the  ballot  standing:  Scott,  159;  Fillmore,  112; 
Webster,  21.'  In  the  Whig  convention  a  majority  nominated. 

It  is  apparent  that  the  conservative  Whigs  might  have 
controlled  the  nomination,  for  the  strength  of  Fillmore  and 
Webster  united  on  either  one  was  sufficient.  Fillmore  was 
the  second  choice  of  Webster's  friends,  and,  in  the  opinion 


1  New  Hampshire  four,  Vermont  three,  Massachusetts  eleven,  Rhode 
Island  two,  Connecticut  three,  New  York  two,  Wisconsin  three,  Califor- 
nia one. 

1  Twenty  Years  of  Congress,  Blaine,  vol.  i.  p.  101. 

•  On  the  last  ballot  Virginia  gave  Scott  eight,  Tennessee  and  Missouri 
each  three  votes. 


CH.  m.]  THE  WHIG  CONVENTION  257 

of  most  of  the  Fillmore  delegates,  Webster  was  preferable 
to  Scott.  Considering  the  cordial  relations  existing  between 
the  President  and  Secretary  of  State,  the  fact  that  they  were 
both  in  Washington,  and  that  a  Sunday  intervened  between 
the  days  of  balloting,  it  may  seem  surprising  that  their 
friends  did  not  get  together  and  decide  to  concentrate  their 
votes.  The  President  had  written  a  letter  withdrawing  his 
name  from  the  consideration  of  the  convention.  This  had 
been  confided  in  secrecy  to  the  delegate  from  Buffalo,  N.  Y., 
with  instructions  to  present  it  whenever  he  should  deem 
proper,  but  it  was  never  laid  before  the  convention.1  But, 
in  truth,  it  was  impossible  to  deliver  over  the  whole  Fill- 
more  strength  to  Webster.  A  determined  effort  was  made 
to  nominate  the  Massachusetts  statesman,  and  his  chances 
were  greater  than  the  number  of  his  votes  would  seem  to 
indicate.  He  had  strong  supporters  at  the  South,  among 
whom  were  Kobert  Toombs  and  Alexander  H.  Stephens.9 
Nearly  all  the  Southern  delegates,  however,  were  instructed 
to  vote  for  Fillmore,  and  this  they  felt  bound  to  do,  until  it 
should  be  apparent  that  he  could  not  be  nominated.  This 
point  was  seemingly  reached  on  Saturday.  The  Southern 
friends  of  Webster  made  a  careful  canvass  and  found  that  of 
the  one  hundred  and  twenty-eight  votes  for  Fillmore,  which 
was  his  average  number,  twenty-two  of  them  would  probably 
go  to  Scott  when  the  break  came,  but  that  one  hundred  and  six 
could  be  relied  upon  for  Webster.  This  number  they  promised 
if  Webster  could  come  to  the  line  of  Maryland  forty  strong. 
This  would  give  him  one  hundred  and  forty-six,  which,  togeth- 
er with  the  one  vote  from  California  of  which  he  was  always 
sure,  would  make  the  one  hundred  and  forty-seven  necessary 
for  a  choice.  The  Northern  managers  worked  industriously 
to  bring  this  about.  They  endeavored  to  win  over  .enough 
from  the  New  York  delegation,  but  that  was  controlled  by 


1  The  Republic,  Ireland,  vol.  xiii.  p.  314. 

1  See  The  War  between  the  States,  A.  H.  Stephens,  vol.  i.  p.  33«;  ToL 
ii.  p.  239. 

L-17 


258  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1852 

Seward  and  would  not  quit  Scott.  They  plied  the  Maine 
delegates,  who  coldly  refused  their  aid  to  the  greatest  son 
of  New  England,  for  the  defeat  of  Webster  was  a  consum- 
mation as  devoutly  wished  for  as  the  success  of  Scott. 
Powerful  and  almost  tearful  appeals  were  made  to  Dawes 
and  Lee  to  give  their  votes  for  Webster,  if  only  for  one  bal- 
lot, in  order  that  the  Massachusetts  delegation  might  be 
unanimous ;  but  they  absolutely  declined  to  do  so,  and  voted 
for  Scott  to  the  end.  It  was  then  impossible  to  secure  the 
requisite  number  of  Northern  votes,  and  the  Southern  dele- 
gates, unless  they  could  be  assured  that  their  accession  would 
nominate  Webster,  would  not  leave  Fillmore.1 

Either  before  the  convention  met  or  immediately  on  its 
assembling,  the  Northern  managers  for  Scott  and  some 
Southern  delegates  had  made  a  tacit  bargain.  It  is  evi- 
dent from  the  debates  in  Congress  that  Scott  had  in- 
fluential supporters  at  the  South,  many  of  whom  did  not 
scruple  to  declare  their  preference,8  and  while  the  congres- 
sional politicians  might  have  been  willing  to  take  him  with- 
out platform  or  personal  pledges,  they  knew  it  was  idle  to 
think  of  carrying  a  Southern  State  for  him  unless  the  con- 
vention should  declare  the  Fugitive  Slave  law  a  finality.  It 
was  therefore  arranged  that  in  case  the  Scott  men  should 


1  See  an  article  entitled  u  Doings  of  the  Convention "  in  the  Boston 
Courier,  June  25th,  of  which  the  editor  said  this  article  was  "  furnished 
by  a  gentleman  whose  character  and  standing  in  this  community  are  a 
guarantee  for  its  fidelity  and  fairness."  This  article  was  attributed  to 
Choate  and  to  a  Mr.  Swan,  but  it  was  probably  written  by  William  Hay- 
den,  a  delegate,  and  a  former  editor  of  the  Boston  Atlas.  The  Spring- 
field Republican  of  June  28th  copied  the  article  entire,  and  said :  "  We  are 
assured  by  another  Massachusetts  delegate  that,  so  far  as  it  goes,  its 
statements  are  strictly  true."  See  also  Life  of  Choate,  Brown,  p.  279,  and 
Reminiscences,  Peter  Harvey,  p.  239.  "  It  was  stated  by  the  chairman  of  the 
Mississippi  delegation  that  nine-tenths  of  the  Southern  delegates  were 
willing  to  leave  Fillmore  and  go  for  Webster,  although  they  were  deterred 
from  doing  so  for  fear  that  when  their  phalanx  was  broken,  enough  del- 
egates would  go  to  Scott  to  nominate  him." — Boston  Daily  Advertiser. 

*  See  Congressional  Globe,  vol.  zxiv.  p.  1077  et  Mg.,  also  p.  1159. 


CH.  III.]  THE  WHIG  CONVENTION  259 

support  the  declaration  of  principles  agreeable  to  the  South, 
the  Southern  delegates,  on  the  breaking-up  of  the  Fillmore 
vote,  would  go  to  Scott  in  numbers  sufficient  to  nominate 
him.  The  vote  at  that  time  against  the  platform  was  by 
no  means  a  representation  of  the  entire  Northern  opposi- 
tion, for  many  delegates  sacrificed  their  cherished  opinions 
in  order  to  make  sure  the  nomination  of  their  candidate. 
The  New  York  Tribune  spoke  for  a  large  number  of  faith- 
ful Whigs  when  it  said  that  while  there  was  no  probability 
that  the  Fugitive  Slave  law  would  be  altered  by  Congress 
during  the  present  generation,  to  declare  it  a  finality  was 
irritating  and  useless.  Agitation  will  not  be  stopped  by 
resolution,  the  editor  argued,  but  if  the  hunting  of  fugitive 
slaves  at  the  North  should  cease,  it  might  be  checked.1 

Scott  was  a  Virginian  by  birth,  a  gentleman  of  honor- 
able character  and  conservative  principles,  but  his  claim 
to  the  nomination  was  solely  on  account  of  his  brilliant 
campaign  in  the  Mexican  war.  As  one  of  his  enthusiastic 
advocates  said  in  the  Senate,  he  was  "  greater  than  Cortez 
in  his  triumphant,  glorious,  and  almost  miraculous  march 
from  Vera  Cruz  to  the  old  city  of  the  Aztecs." 2  It  would 
be  unfair  to  judge  the  man  from  his  autobiography,  for  it 
was  written  in  a  garrulous  old  age,  and  is  the  most  egotis- 
tical of  memoirs.8  At  this  time  he  was  inflated  with  vanity 
and  puffed  up  with  his  own  importance.  It  should  be  the 
prayer  of  his  friends  that  he  may  be  estimated  by  his  ac- 
tions rather  than,  by  his  words,  for  to  his  adversary  it  was 
a  delight  that  he  had  written  a  book.  Many  of  the  Whig 
politicians  had  a  superstition  that  only  a  general  could  lead 
them  to  victory,  for  they  had  never  been  successful  except 
under  Harrison  and  Taylor.  If  it  were  military  glory  which 


1  The  Tribune,  June  22d.  In  addition  to  the  authorities  already  cited 
I  have  used  in  this  account  of  the  Whig  convention  the  New  York  Trib- 
une; History  of  Presidential  Elections,  Stanwood;  Memories  of  Rufus 
Choate.  Neilson ;  Life  of  Webster,  Curtis,  vol.  ii. 

8  Mangum,  of  North  Carolina,  April  15th. 

•  The  autobiography  of  Lieutenant-General  Scott  was  written  in  1863. 


260  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1852 

won  the  populace,  why  was  not  Scott,  a  greater  general  than 
either,  an  eminently  strong  candidate  ? 

Fillmore  took  his  defeat  with  equanimity,  but  to  Webster 
the  action  of  the  convention  was  the  eclipse  of  the  bright 
hopes  with  which  he  had  long  deluded  himself.  The  ac- 
count given  by  his  Boswell1  of  the  great  man's  interview 
with  Choate  immediately  after  the  convention  is  inexpressi- 
bly sad.  The  deep  grief  exhibited  on  that  handsome  face, 
the  studied  avoidance  of  the  subject  of  which  his  mind  was 
too  full  for  utterance,  at  the  silent  meal  of  which  the  three 
partook,  and  then  the  hour's  private  conversation,  made  the 
scene  linger  long  afterwards  in  the  memory  of  Choate  as  the 
most  mournful  experience  of  his  life.2  The  words  of  the 
Preacher, "  Vanity  of  vanities,  all  is  vanity,"  must  have  come 
to  the  great  statesman  with  a  force  felt  only  by  deep  and 
strong  natures.  Had  he  served  the  law  or  literature 3  with 
half  the  zeal  with  which  he  served  the  public,  he  would  not 
in  his  age  have  been  left  naked  to  his  enemies.  What  a 
comment  it  is  on  the  disappointments  that  hedge  about  po- 
litical life  that  the  author  of  the  reply  to  Hayne  and  of  the 
Bunker  Hill  and  Plymouth  orations  should  sigh  in  vain  for 
the  position  to  which  so  many  mediocre  men  have  been 
called !  It  is  easy  to  censure  ambition  like  Webster's,  yet 
we  know  that  unless,  in  a  democracy,  the  best  statesmen  de- 
sire the  highest  office  in  the  State,  political  dry  rot  has  set 
in — a  fact  which  it  is  our  fashion  to  ignore  when  we  moral- 
ize on  the  desire  for  the  presidency  that  lays  such  strong 
hold  of  our  public  men.  Many  writers  who  believe  that 
Webster  sold  himself  to  the  South  gloat  over  the  fact  that 


>  Peter  Harvey,  Lodge  so  calls  him,  p.  95.  *  Harvey,  p.  195. 

•  "I  make  no  progress  towards  accomplishing  an  object  which  has  en- 
gaged my  contemplations  for  many  years,  A  History  of  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  and  President  Washington's  Administration.  This 
project  has  long  had  existence  as  an  idea ;  and  as  an  idea  I  fear  it  is 
likely  to  die."— Webster  to  Edward  Everett,  Nov.  28th,  1848,  Private 
Correspondence,  vol.  ii.  p.  289. 


OH.  Ill]  DEATH   OF  CLAY  261 

he  did  not  receive  a  single  Southern  vote  in  the  convention, 
and,  with  reckless  disregard  of  his  physical  condition,  aver 
that  the  disappointment  at  not  receiving  the  nomination 
actually  killed  him.1 

The  usual  noisy  rejoicings  over  the  result  of  the  conven- 
tion disturbed  the  founder  of  the  Whig  party,  Clay,  as  he 
lay  upon  his  death-bed  in  the  National  Hotel  at  Washing' 
ton.  He  had  come  to  the  capital  at  the  opening  of  Con- 
gress, but  had  only  been  able  to  go  once  to  the  Senate.  His 
disease  was  consumption,  and  death  had  now  stared  him  in 
the  face  many  months.  He  had  a  sincere  Christian  faith, 
and,  retaining  his  mental  faculties  to  the  last,  awaited  with 
composure  the  inevitable  summons  which  came  on  the  29th 
day  of  June.  As  he  had  been  loved,  so  was  he  mourned  by 
the  people  of  the  nation.  The  funeral  progress  was  made 
through  many  cities  on  the  way  to  Lexington.  New  York 
testified  its  grief  by  a  most  imposing  demonstration.  The 
city  was  draped  in  mourning,  and  appropriate  inscriptions 
were  everywhere  displayed ;  the  favorite  one,  "  the  man 
who  would  rather  be  right  than  President,"  seemed  to  sum 
up  best  the  life  of  Clay.  Minute-guns  were  fired  from  the 
forts  in  the  bay,  and  bells  tolled,  as  the  long  procession  ac- 
companied the  funeral-car  through  the  streets,  marching  to 
the  dirge  and  the  mournful  measure  of  the  muffled  drums. 
Never  had  the  city  seen  such  a  general  manifestation  of 
popular  grief.  Political  differences  were  forgotten.  A  great 
countryman  was  dead,  and  he  was  mourned  not  as  a  Whig, 
but  as  an  American.3  Everywhere  those  who  had  loved  and 
admired  him,  those  who  had  been  swayed  by  his  voice  and 
influenced  by  his  words,  paid  a  last  respectful  tribute  to  his 
remains.  The  lament  of  the  nation  was  loud  and  sincere,  and 
Kentucky  mourned  for  him  as  a  mother  sorrows  for  a  son.' 

1  "  It  was  the  fashion  in  certain  quarters  to  declare  that  it  killed  him ; 
but  this  was  manifestly  absurd." — Life  of  Webster,  Lodge,  p.  340;  see 
what  follows.  *  New  York  Herald,  July  21st. 

8  For  an  account  of  the  obsequies,  see  Last  Years  of  Henry  Clay,  Colton, 
p.  438  et  ante. 


262  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1862 

Scott's  letter  of  acceptance  was  published  a  few  days  after 
the  adjournment  of  the  convention.  "  I  accept,"  he  wrote, 
"  the  nomination  with  the  resolutions  annexed."  '  The  ac- 
tion of  the  convention  was  coldly  received  by  the  Whigs. 
Those  who  liked  the  platform  did  not  like  the  candidate, 
and  those  who  were  warm  for  the  candidate  objected  de- 
cidedly to  the  platform.3  Many  thought :  the  voice  is  Ja- 
cob's voice,  but  the  hands  are  the  hands  of  Esau.  Seward 
was  the  political  juggler,  or  Mephistopheles,  as  some  called 
him,  and  the  result  was  regarded  as  his  triumph.  The  no- 
tion prevailed  that  Scott,  if  he  became  President,  would  be 
controlled  by  Seward,  and  this  was  certain  to  hurt  the  can- 
didate at  the  South.  Seward  therefore,  five  days  after  the 
nomination,  took  the  unusual  course  of  writing  a  public  let- 
ter, in  which  he  said  he  would  not  ask  or  accept  "  any  pub- 
lic station  or  preferment  whatever  at  the  hands  of  the  Pres- 
ident of  the  United  States,  whether  that  President  were 
Winfield  Scott  or  any  other  man." 3 

Some  of  the  prominent  Whig  newspapers  of  Georgia  de- 
clined to  sustain  Scott,  because  his  election  would  mean  Free- 
soilism  and  Sewardism.4  An  address  was  issued  on  the  3d 
of  July  by  Alexander  H.  Stephens,  Eobert  Toombs,  and  five 
other  Whig  representatives,  in  which  they  flatly  refused  to 
support  Scott  because  he  was  "  the  favorite  candidate  of  the 
Free-soil  wing  of  the  Whig  party,"  and  he  had  not  clearly 
said  that  he  regarded  the  compromise  measures  as  a  final- 
ity.* The  business  men  of  New  York  city  disliked  the  nom- 


1  The  letter  was  published  in  the  National  Intelligencer  of  June  29th. 
It  is  dated  June  24th.  He  received  his  official  notification  the  22d. 

»  The  phrase  "  We  accept  the  candidate,  but  spit  upon  the  platform," 
became  very  common  among  Northern  Whigs. 

*  Seward's  Works,  vol.  iii.  p.  416.     The  letter  is  dated  June  26th. 

*  The  Augusta  Chronicle  and  the  Savannah  Republican.     The  Savannah 
News  disliked  the  nomination  exceedingly. 

*  Von  Hoist,  vol.  iv.  p.  208;  McCluskey's  Political  Text-book,  p.  682. 
Three  of  the  signers  were  from  Georgia,  two  from  Alabama,  one  each  from 
Mississippi  and  Virginia. 


CH.IIL]  WEBSTER  AT  BOSTON  263 

ination,  as  they  were  afraid  of  Seward's  influence.  There 
was  no  enthusiasm  in  Boston  and  Massachusetts ;  the  State 
was  Whig  to  the  core,  but  the  active  people  and  most  of  the 
newspapers  were  disaffected  because  Webster  had  not  been 
nominated.  In  other  places,  also,  there  was  discontent  at 
the  turn  affairs  had  taken.1 

A  Union  convention  of  Georgia  and  a  Native  American 
convention,  held  at  Trenton,  N.  J.,  nominated  Webster  for 
President ;  later,  a  Webster  electoral  ticket  was  put  into  the 
field  in  Massachusetts ;  but  he  neither  accepted  nor  declined 
any  of  these  nominations.  The  happiest  day  of  this,  the 
last  year  of  Webster's  life,  was  the  9th  of  July,  when  he  re- 
ceived an  enthusiastic  reception  and  heart-felt  greeting  from 
the  citizens  of  Boston.  It  was  the  fashion  then  to  compare 
all  demonstrations  with  the  one  made  in  honor  of  Lafayette 
in  1824,3  and  those  who  took  part  in  both  declared  Webster's 
reception  much  more  imposing  than  that  given  to  the  gal- 
lant Frenchman.8  The  estrangement  between  Massachusetts 
and  her  favorite  son,  which  had  existed  since  the  speech  of 
the  7th  of  March,  had  passed  away.  Webster's  address  was 
in  exquisite  taste.  He  did  not  touch  the  political  questions 
of  the  day,  but  he  paid  an  eloquent  tribute  to  Boston  and 
to  Massachusetts,  for  he  was  as  proud  of  Massachusetts  as 
was  she  of  her  great  statesman.4 


1  "  The  dissatisfaction  in  the  early  part  of  the  summer  took  a  somewhat 
active  form  in  the  States  of  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Georgia,  Tennes- 
see, North  Carolina,  and  Massachusetts." — Life  of  Webster,  Curtis,  vol.  ii. 
p.  650. 

2  Those  who  are  interested  in  these  matters  will  find  an  entertaining 
•\ocount  of  this  in  Josiah  Quincy's  Figures  of  the  Past. 

•  Curtis,  vol.  ii.  p.  628. 

4  In  Theodore  Parker's  Scrap-Book,  in  the  Boston  Public  Library,  is  an 
account  of  this  reception  to  Webster,  taken  from  the  Boston  Atlas  ot 
July  10th.  Among  the  men  who  rode  in  the  carriages  was  George  T 
Curtis.  Parker  underscores  his  name,  and  writes  in  lead  pencil :  "  N.  B. 
That  Nemesis  is  never  asleep.  "Webster  must  be  attended  with  the  Kid- 
napper. The  Sims  brigade  ought  also  to  have  been  OD  parade.  The 
court-house  should  have  been  festooned  with 


264  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1861 

While  the  candidacy  of  Scott  repelled  the  most  conserva- 
tive Whigs,  the  platform  made  it  impossible  for  the  Free- 
soilers  to  come  to  his  support.  They  held  a  convention  in 
August  and  nominated  Hale  for  President  and  Julian  for 
Vice-President.  They  epigrammatized  their  principles  in  the 
words  "  Free  soil,  free  speech,  free  labor,  and  free  men." 
The  drift  of  anti-slavery  opinion,  as  well  as  its  varying 
shades,  is  illustrated  by  the  fact  that  Henry  Wilson,  Charles 
F.  Adams,  of  Massachusetts,  and  Giddings  supported  Hale, 
while  Wade,  Seward,  and  Greeley  advocated  the  election  of 
Scott.  All  of  these  men  were  of  Whig  antecedents. 

The  Democrats  soon  recovered  from  the  surprise  of 
Pierce's  nomination,  and  began  to  feel  a  genuine  enthusiasm 
for  their  candidate,  and  for  their  declaration  of  principles. 
They  were  joyful  to  have  the  party  reunited;  they  were 
certain  that  the  platform  represented  the  prevailing  senti- 
ment ;  and  when  they  had  read  up  about  Pierce,  they  were 
satisfied  that  he  was  not  a  vulnerable  candidate.  The  men 
who  were  prominent  before  the  Baltimore  convention  did 
not  delay  the  announcement  that  they  would  give  Pierce 
their  cordial  support.  The  New  York  Evening  Post,  which 
upheld  powerfully  the  Free -soil  movement  of  1848,  and 
whose  editor  had  strong  anti  -  slavery  views,  now  advo- 
cated Pierce,  and  was  followed  by  other  journals  which  got 
their  cue  from  the  metropolitan  organ.1  The  argument 
of  the  Post,  that  the  Democratic  candidate  and  platform 
were  really  more  favorable  to  liberty  than  the  Whig,  was 
somewhat  strained ;  the  editor  failed  to  look  the  situation 
squarely  in  the  face.8  He  was,  however,  acting  in  perfect 
harmony  with  the  prominent  New  York  Democrats  who 
had,  four  years  previously,  bolted  the  regular  nomination. 
Yan  Buren  himself  had  announced  that  he  should  vote  for 
Pierce.1  Yet  it  was  perfectly  evident  that  anti-slavery  men 


1  Life  of  William  Cullen  Bryant,  Godwin,  vol.  ii.  pp.  43,  62. 

5  See  especially  an  article  cited  in  National  Intelligencer  of  July  15th. 

»  Letter  of  July  1st,  Life  of  Pierce,  Bartlett,  p.  295. 


CH.  HI]  SUMNER  AND  THE  FUGITIVE  SLAVE  LAW  26$ 

had  more  to  hope  from  the  success  of  the  Whigs  than  of  the 
Democrats.1  Chase,  although  still  a  Democrat,  would  not 
support  Pierce,  but  gave  his  adherence  to  the  Free-soil  nom- 
inations, and  tried  hard,  though  in  vain,  to  bring  to  their 
support  his  former  New  York  associates.* 

Although  the  session  of  Congress  lasted  until  August  Slstv 
1852,  its  proceedings  are  devoid  of  interest,  as  is  apt  to  be 
the  case  in  the  year  devoted  to  the  making  of  a  new  Presi- 
dent. "  A  politician,"  writes  Horace  Mann  from  Washing- 
ton, "does  not  sneeze  without  reference  to  the  next  Presi- 
dency. All  things  are  carried  to  that  tribunal  for  decision." 
"Congress  does  little  else  but  intrigue  for  the  respective 
candidates."  "  Our  debates  lately  are  mostly  on  the  presi- 
dential question."  "Our  political  caldron  is  beginning  to 
seethe  vehemently." 8 

But  there  was  one  senator  who  felt  that  he  owed  alle- 
giance to  neither  political  party,  and  who,  with  an  entire 
disregard  of  the  effect  his  words  might  have  on  the  fortune 
of  either  candidate,  was  determined  to  have  his  say.  In  May, 
Sumner  presented  a  memorial  from  the  representatives  of 
the  Society  of  Friends  in  New  England,  asking  the  repeal 
of  the  Fugitive  Slave  law.  In  introducing  it  he  made  a  few 
remarks,  laying  down  this  aphorism :  "  Freedom,  and  not 
slavery,  is  national;  while  slavery,  and  not  freedom,  is  sec- 
tional." This  sententious  truth  proclaimed  by  the  inde- 
pendent senator  was  destined  to  be  of  -  greater  worth,  even 
as  a  party  shibboleth,  than  the  verbose  declarations  of  the 
Democratic  and  Whig  conventions.  In  July,  Sumner  wanted 
leave  to  introduce  a  resolution  instructing  the  judiciary  com- 
mittee to  consider  the  expediency  of  reporting  a  bill  for  the 
immediate  repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  act ;  but  permission 
was  refused,  only  ten  senators  voting  for  it.  The  short  de- 


1  This  is  well  stated  by  Horace  Mann,  Letter  of  June  24th,  Life,  p.  37ft, 
9  Life  of  Chase,  Schuckers,  p.  130. 

*  Letters  of  Feb.  3d,  March  27th,  April  24th,  May  8th,  Life,  pp.  358^ 
362,  363. 


266  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1852 

bate  on  the  subject  is  interesting  from  the  fact  of  one  of  the 
senators  from  Mississippi1  stating  that  a  convention  of  his 
State  had  solemnly  declared  that  the  repeal  of  this  law 
would  be  regarded  as  sufficient  ground  for  the  dissolution 
of  the  Union.  This,  he  said,  was  no  idle  threat.  While  it 
was  true  that  his  people  did  not  think  this  act  of  any  essen- 
tial benefit,  as  slaves  from  Mississippi  seldom  escaped,  and 
when  they  did  the  cost  and  trouble  of  recapturing  them 
amounted  to  more  than  their  value,  yet  the  repeal  "  would 
be  an  act  of  bad  faith,"  and  show 'that  the  North  would  not 
live  up  to  any  bargain.  One  of  the  senators  from  Georgia' 
followed  in  a  similar  strain.  His  State  stood  pledged  to  dis- 
solve the  ties  which  bound  her  to  the  Union  the  moment  the 
Fugitive  Slave  law  was  repealed,  and  this  interdependence 
he  pointed  impressively  by  quoting  the  prophetic  saying  of 
the  pilgrims : 

"  While  stands  the  Coliseum,  Rome  shall  stand ; 
When  falls  the  Coliseum,  Rome  shall  fall." 

Although  Sumner  failed  to  get  a  hearing  this  day,  he  was 
resolved  to  speak  before  the  session  came  to  an  end.  Five 
days  before  the  final  adjournment  an  amendment  to  one  of 
the  appropriation  bills  was  under  consideration,  which  pro- 
vided for  the  payment  of  extraordinary  expenses  incurred 
in  executing  the  laws  of  the  United  States.  It  was  plain 
that  the  intent  was  to  have  the  general  government  bear  the 
cost  of  capturing  runaway  negroes.  Sumner  moved  that 
the  Fugitive  Slave  act  be  excepted  from  the  operation  of  this 
amendment,  and  that  the  act  itself  be  repealed.  This  gave 
him  the  opportunity  to  speak  on  the  question,  which,  in  his 
view,  far  transcended  the  importance  of  President-making. 

"  I  could  not,"  he  said,  "  allow  this  session  to  reach  its 
close,  without  making  or  seizing  an  opportunity  to  declare 
myself  openly  against  the  usurpation,  injustice,  and  cruelty 
of  the  late  enactment  by  Congress  for  the  recovery  of  fugi- 


Brooke.  » Charlton. 


CH.  III.]          ST7MNER  AND  THE  FUGITIVE  SLAVE  LAW  26*i 

tive  slaves."  He  made  an  elaborate  argument  in  favor  of 
his  thesis  that  slavery  was  sectional,  not  national.  He 
showed  that  this  was  true  from  a  legal  point  of  view;  it 
was  historically  confirmed ;  the  statesmen  who  made  the 
nation  bore  witness  to  its  truth ;  the  church  and  the  col- 
leges supported  the  statesmen  He  asserted  that  the  litera- 
ture of  the  land  condemned  slavery;  and  it  was  abhorred 
by  the  "  outspoken,  unequivocal  heart  of  the  country  "  at  the 
time  the  Constitution  was  adopted. 

He  examined  the  history  of  the  fugitive  slave  clause  of 
the  Constitution,  and  pointed  out  that  it  was  not  one  of  the 
compromises;  he  averred  that  the  Fugitive  Slave  act  of 
1Y93  "was  not  originally  suggested  by  any  difficulty  or 
anxiety  touching  fugitives  from  labor."  He  argued  that 
the  act  of  1850  was  unconstitutional,  dissecting  it  with  se- 
verity, and  exposing  its  merciless  provisions  in  terse  state- 
ments. Congress  had  no  power  to  pass  such  a  law,  he 
maintained ;  but  if  it  had,  it  was  bound  by  a  provision  of  the 
Constitution  to  give  the  fugitive  a  jury  trial.  "  Even  if  this 
act  could  claim  any  validity  or  apology  under  the  Constitu- 
tion, which  it  cannot,  it  lacks  that  essential  support  m  the 
public  conscience  of  the  States  where  it  is  to  be  enforced,  which 
is  the  life  of  all  law,  and  without  which  any  law  must  become 
a  dead  Utter" 

As  pertinent  to  the  subject,  he  introduced  an  original  his- 
torical document  in  the  shape  of  a  letter  from  Washington, 
which  had  never  before  seen  the  light.  One  of  "Washington's 
slaves  had  fled  to  New  Hampshire.  In  a  letter  to  the  col- 
lector at  Portsmouth,  after  describing  the  fugitive  and  ex- 
pressing the  desire  of  her  mistress,  Mrs.  Washington,  for  her 
return,  he  says :  "  I  do  not  mean,  however,  by  this  request 
that  violent  measures  should  be  used,  as  would  excite  a  mob 
or  riot — which  might  be  the  case  if  she  has  adherents — or  even 
uneasy  sensations  vn  the  minds  of  well -disposed  citizens. 
Kather  than  either  of  these  should  happen,  I  would  forego 
her  services  altogether ;  and  the  example  also,  which  is  of 
infinite  more  importance." 


208  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1852 

The  orator  impressively  added :  "  Sir,  the  existing  slave 
act  cannot  be  enforced  without  violating  the  precept  of 
"Washington.  Not  merely  uneasy  sensations  among  well- 
disposed  persons,  but  rage,  tumult,  commotion,  mob,  riot, 
violence,  death,  gush  from  its  fatal,  overflowing  fountains. 
Not  a  case  occurs  without  endangering  the  public  peace." 

He  closed  with  an  application  of  the  higher-law  doctrine 
to  the  subject.  "The  slave  act  violates  the  Constitution 
and  shocks  the  public  conscience.  With  modesty,  and  yet 
with  firmness,  let  me  add,  sir,  it  offends  against  the  divine 
law.  No  such  enactment  can  be  entitled  to  support.  As 
the  throne  of  God  is  above  every  earthly  throne,  so  are  his 
laws  and  statutes  above  all  the  laws  and  statutes  of  man." ' 

This  was  Sumner's  first  elaborate  oration  in  the  Senate. 
He  spoke  for  four  hours  in  an  elegant  and  finished  manner.9 
It  was  the  speech  of  a  lawyer,  a  scholar,  an  historian,  and  a 
moralist,  for  he  had  the  equipment  of  them  all.  To  intel- 
lectual strength  and  moral  feeling  was  joined  the  physical 
courage  that  dared  anything.  Here  was  a  new  and  danger- 
ous foe  of  slavery.  Clemens,  of  Alabama,  with  a  levity  cer- 
tainly not  shown  by  his  Southern  associates,  thought  the 
speech  unworthy  of  notice ;  "  the  ravings  of  a  maniac,"  he 
said,  "  may  sometimes  be  dangerous,  but  the  barking  of  a 
puppy  never  did  any  harm."  Hale  complimented  the  ora- 
tor ;  he  had  placed  himself  "  side  by  side  with  the  first  ora- 
tors of  antiquity,  and  as  far  ahead  of  any  living  American 
orator  as  freedom  is  ahead  of  slavery."  Chase  declared  that 
the  speech  "  will  be  received  as  an  emphatic  protest  against 
the  slavish  doctrine  of  finality  in  legislation  which  two  of 
the  political  conventions  recently  held  have  joined  in  forc- 
ing upon  the  country ;"  this  speech  "  will  mark  an  era  in 
American  history."  Horace  Mann  wrote  home :  "The  26th 
of  August,  1852,  redeemed  the  7th  of  March,  1850." ' 

For  Sumner's  amendment  there  were  only  four  votes,  viz. : 


1  These  quotations  are  from  vol.  xxv.  Congressional  Globe. 

»  Life  of  Horace  Mann,  p.  381.  3  Ibid.,  p.  381. 


CH.  HI.]          SUMNER  AND  THE  FUGITIVE  SLAVE  LAW  269 

Chase,  Hale,  Sumner,  and  Wade.  It  was  noted  as  signifi- 
cant that  Seward  was  not  present  during  this  debate,  but 
there  was  nothing  inconsistent  in  his  not  caring  at  this  time 
to  make  a  record  upon  a  question  of  no  practical  value,  for 
it  was  clearly  impossible  to  repeal  the  Fugitive  Slave  law, 
and  in  a  political  campaign,  where  report  spoke  of  him  as 
the  exponent  of  the  Whig  candidate,  it  would  have  been 
impolitic  for  him  to  enter  upon  this  question.  He  knew 
well  enough  that  the  anti-slavery  cause  had  more  to  hope 
from  Scott  than  from  Pierce,  and,  in  his  view,  it  was  a  duty 
of  anti-slavery  men  to  work  and  vote  for  the  success  of  the 
Whig  party.  William  Cullen  Bryant,  a  keen  observer  and, 
though  supporting  Pierce,  a  strong  opponent  of  slavery, 
thought  this  effort  of  Sumner  useless.  Bryant  undoubtedly 
expressed  the  best  political  wisdom  of  the  time  when  he 
wrote :  "  I  see  not  the  least  chance  of  a  repeal  or  change  of 
the  Fugitive  Slave  law.  Its  fate  is  to  fall  into  disuse.  All 
political  organizations  to  procure  its  repeal  are  attempts  at 
an  impracticability.  We  must  make  it  odious,  and  prevent 
it  from  being  enforced." ' 

No  presidential  campaign  is  so  hopeless  that  the  weaker 
candidate  and  his  friends  do  not  at  some  time  during  its 
progress  sincerely  entertain  anticipations  of  success.8  In  a 
few  weeks  after  the  nomination  of  Scott,  the  bitter  disap- 
pointment of  Webster's  and  Fillmore's  friends  had,  in  some 
degree,  subsided,  and  the  faithful  party-men  began  to  rally 
to  the  support  of  the  regular  nominee.  The  Scott  managers 
tried  to  work  up  enthusiasm  for  their  candidate  in  the  man- 
ner that  had  been  so  successful  in  1840.  Scott  was  a  greater 
general  than  Harrison.  It  seemed  possible  that  Lundy's 
Lane  and  Mexico  might  arouse  as  great  enthusiasm  as  had 
been  inspired  by  the  watchword  of  Tippecanoe.  As  a  be- 
ginning, a  mass-meeting  was  held  on  the  anniversary  of  the 


1  Life  of  Bryant,  Godwin,  vol.  ii.  p.  63. 

*  Rufus  Choate,  as  late  as  Sept.  26th, "  thought  Scott's  chances  of  an 
election  were  very  .good."    See  Reminiscences  by  Parker,  p.  259. 


270  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1851 

battle  as  near  as  possible  to  the  classic  spot  of  Lundy's  Lane. 
The  gathering  hosts  could  not  assemble  on  the  battle-field 
where  Scott  had  so  gallantly  and  successfully  fought,  for 
that  was  in  Canada ;  they  therefore  came  together  at  Ni- 
agara Falls.  Delegations  arrived  from  many  States.  Two 
hundred  and  twenty  officers  and  soldiers  of  the  war  of  1812 
were  present,  and  some  of  them  had  also  taken  part  in  the 
battle  which  they  were  now  glad  to  celebrate.  The  meeting 
lasted  two  days.  The  reports  of  the  number  present  varied 
considerably  as  the  count  was  Democratic  or  Whig,  but  no 
doubt  remains  that  it  was  an  imposing  assemblage.  Thos. 
Ewing,  of  Ohio,  acted  as  president  of  the  day,  and  among 
the  speakers  were  Henry  Winter  Davis,  Greeley,  and  Will- 
iam Schouler.  The  New  York  Tribune  judged  that  it  sur- 
passed the  most  enthusiastic  of  the  Harrison  meetings  of 
1840.1 

Nevertheless,  this  was  a  quiet  campaign.  There  was  no 
principle  at  stake.  The  New  York  Tribune,  which  could 
not  accept  the  Whig  platform,  and  yet  in  deference  to  its 
position  as  a  party  organ  kept  its  anti-slavery  views  in  the 
background,  dragged  into  the  canvass  the  tariff  question. 
Elaborate  articles  constantly  appeared  in  its  columns,  advo- 
cating the  principle  of  protection,  and  endeavoring  to  prove 
that  the  economic  interests  of  the  people  would  be  better 
cared  for  by  the  Whigs  than  by  the  Democrats.  The  Trib- 
une quoted  the  approval  of  Pierce  by  the  London  Times, 
"as  a  valuable  practical  ally  to  the  commercial  policy"  of 
England,*  and  added,  let  Americans  "choose  between  the 
British  and  American  candidate."  In  another  issue,  with  an 
eye  to  an  important  part  of  the  foreign  vote,  the  editor  asks : 


1  July  29th.    The  meeting  was  July  27th  and  28th. 

*  Tribune,  July  21st.  "  We  greatly  prefer  General  Pierce  to  either  Gen- 
eral Case,  Mr.  Douglas,  or  Mr.  Buchanan ;  ...  to  descend  to  minor  par- 
ticulars in  his  political  creed,  he  is  at  once  a  man  of  New  England  and 
yet  a  decided  champion  of  free  trade." — London  Times,  June  24th,  cited 
in  New  York  Herald,  July  9th. 


CH.  III.]  THE  PRESIDENTIAL  CAMPAIGN  271 

"  Will  Irishmen  support  British  policy  ?"  *  The  New  York 
Evening  Post  took  up  the  gauntlet,  arguing  gravely  that  the 
cause  of  freedom  of  trade  was  a  vital  one,  and  that  it  de- 
manded the  election  of  Pierce.  Yet  everybody  knew  that 
Greeley  and  Bryant  were  stifling  their  honest  convictions ; 
that  instead  of  combating  one  another's  economic  notions, 
they  ought  to  have  joined  in  denunciation  of  the  Fugitive 
Slave  law  and  of  the  platform  that  declared  it  a  finality. 
The  discussion  of  the  tariff  attracted  no  interest,  and  had 
no  appreciable  effect  upon  the  result.3 

The  interest  in  the  campaign  soon  sank  to  apathy.  After 
the  Lundy's  Lane  celebration,  the  Whig  mass  -  meetings 
were  small  and  lacked  enthusiasm,  while  those  of  the  Dem- 
ocrats were  not  much,  if  any,  better.3  Evening  meetings 
were  held,  and  idle  crowds  were  attracted  by  torchlight 
processions  and  amused  by  transparencies  which  paraded 
the  virtues  of  one  or  set  forth  the  failings  of  the  other  can- 
didate. But  the  heart  of  the  people  was  not  in  it.  The 
cynical  chronicler  of  the  times  wrote :  "  It  is  all  a  contest 
between  the  politicians  for  the  spoils."  * 

As  there  could  be  no  sober  discussion  of  principles,  the 
campaign  degenerated  into  one  where  personal  detraction 
of  the  candidates  became  the  feature.  Pierce  was  called  a 
drunkard ;  he  was  said  to  be  a  coward ;  the  story  ran  that 
on  the  field  of  Churubusco  fear  overcame  him  and  he  fainted. 
It  did  not  matter  that  the  charge  of  cowardice  was  effectu- 
ally disproved  by  the  official  report  of  General  Scott  ;6  the 
partisan  journals  would  not  retract  the  slander,  and  a  favor- 
ite doggerel  ditty  had  for  its  burden  the  contrast  between 
the  bravery  of  Scott  and  the  cowardice  of  Pierce.8  At  the 


1  Sept.  9th.  •  See  New  York  Herald,  Aug.  21st. 

'  Ibid.,  Sept.  19th.  *  Ibid.,  Aug.  21st. 

*  See  New  York  Herald,  July  22d ;  Autobiography  of  General  Scott| 
p.  494 ;  Life  of  Pierce,  Hawthorne,  p.  102. 

"Two  generals  are  in  the  field, 

Frank  Pierce  and  Winfield  Scott, 


272  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1851 

South,  strangely  enough,  Pierce  was  charged  with  being  an 
abolitionist,  though  garbled  extracts  from  an  imperfect  re- 
port of  a  speech  were  all  that  could  give  color  to  this  impu- 
tation. He  was  also  accused  of  being  opposed  to  religious 
liberty.  There  had  been  until  recently  a  provision  in  the 
New  Hampshire  constitution  that  certain  State  offices  should 
be  held  only  by  Protestants.  It  was  said  that  Pierce  did 
not  desire  the  removal  of  this  religious  test,  while,  in  truth, 
he  had  made  continued  efforts  for  that  very  object.1  His 
utterances  in  general  had  not  been  of  the  kind  to  attract 
large  attention,  but  it  was  evident  from  his  public  letter  of 
May  27th  that  he  was  inclined  to  side  with  the  South  rather 
than  with  the  North  on  the  sectional  question  ;a  and  it  is  a 
perfect  indication  of  public  sentiment  at  the  North  that  this 
most  serious  objection  to  Pierce  was  little  used. 

The  charge  against  Scott  which  had  the  greatest  influence 
on  the  result  has  been  already  alluded  to :  he  was  the  Sew- 
ard  candidate  and  tinctured  with  Free-soilism.  Accused  of 
Nativism,  the  basis  for  the  charge  was  a  letter  more  than 
ten  years  old  to  the  American  party  men  of  Philadelphia. 
u  I  now  hesitate,"  the  general  had  written,  "  between  ex- 


Some  think  that  Frank's  a  fighting  man, 

And  some  think  he  is  not. 
Tis  said  that  when  in  Mexico, 

While  leading  on  his  force, 
He  took  a  sudden  fainting  fit, 

And  tumbled  off  his  horse. 

"But  gallant  Scott  has  made  his  mark 

On  many  a  bloody  plain, 
And  patriot  hearts  beat  high  to  greet 

The  Chief  of  Lundy's  Lane. 
And  Chippewa  is  classic  ground, 

Our  British  neighbors  know, 
And  if  you'd  hear  of  later  deeds, 

Go  ask  in  Mexico." 

•Prom  Theodore  Parker's  Scrap-book,  Boston  Public  Library. 
1  Life  of  Pierce,  Hawthorne,  p.  123.     •  Life  of  Pierce,  Bartlett,  p. 


CH.III]  THE  PRESIDENTIAL  CAMPAIGN  273 

tending  the  period  of  residence  before  naturalization  and  a 
total  repeal  of  all  acts  of  Congress  on  the  subject :  my  mind 
inclines  to  the  latter." l  The  large  Irish  and  German  immi- 
gration of  the  past  few  years  had  given  the  foreign  vote  an 
importance  never  before  attached  to  it,  and  this  is  the  first 
presidential  campaign  in  which  we  light  upon  those  now  fa- 
miliar efforts  to  cajole  the  German  and  Irish  citizens.  It  is 
apparent  that  Scott's  opinion  was  a  dangerous  expression 
for  a  presidential  candidate. 

Scott's  vanity  and  egotism  became  a  familiar  subject  of 
ridicule,  and  the  nickname  of  "  Fuss  and  Feathers,"  given  him 
in  the  army,  was  circulated  gleefully  by  the  Democrats. 
An  example  of  the  inclination  of  Americans  to  look  on  the 
humorous  side  of  things  was  shown  in  this  campaign.  At 
the  beginning  of  the  Mexican  war,  when  Scott,  the  general 
of  the  army,  was,  as  he  relates,  in  the  habit  of  spending  fif- 
teen to  eighteen  hours  a  day  in  his  office,  he  happened  one 
day  to  be  absent  at  the  moment  when  the  Secretary  of  "War 
called.  In  explanation,  Scott  wrote  that  regular  meals  be- 
ing out  of  the  question,  he  had  only  stepped  out  to  take  "  a 
hasty  plate  of  soup."  On  another  occasion,  when  it  was 
proposed  to  send  him  to  the  Rio  Grande,  he,  appreciating 
the  Democratic  jealousy  of  Whig  generals,  represented  to 
the  administration  that  unless  he  could  have  their  steady 
support  for  his  plans,  it  would  be  useless  to  go, "  for  soldiers 
had  a  far  greater  dread  of  a  fire  upon  the  rear  than  of  the 
most  formidable  enemy  in  front." a  It  is  not  easy  to  per- 
ceive why  "a  hasty  plate  of  soup"  and  "a  fire  upon  the 
rear"  should  have  seemed  so  ridiculous;  but  these  words 
of  the  stately  general  had,  nevertheless,  their  place  among 
the  materials  of  the  canvass,  and  were  the  cause  of  great 
merriment  to  the  Democrats, 

It  is  pleasant  to  record  some  of  the  amenities  of  this  cam- 


1  Boston  Post,  June  30th ;  New  York  Herald,  July  15th.     The  date  of 
the  letter  was  Nov.  10th,  1841. 

*  Autobiography  of  Lieutenant- General  Scott,  p.  385. 
I.— 18 


274  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1858 

paign.  A  scurrilous  letter  from  Concord,  charging  Pierce 
with  gross  intemperance,  having  appeared  in  the  New  York 
Tribune,  the  editor  the  next  day  apologized  for  its  insertion, 
and  said  that  had  he  known  its  character,  it  would  not  have 
been  printed ;  he  added  that  while  General  Pierce  was  not 
"  a  temperance  man  in  our  sense  of  the  term,  we  know  noth- 
ing with  regard  to  his  habits  that  should  subject  him  to  pub- 
lic reprehension."  *  Martin  Yan  Buren  wrote :  "  The  Whig 
nominee,  in  that  chivalrous  spirit  which  belongs  to  his  char- 
acter, has  commenced  his  first  political  campaign  with  a 
frank  admission  of  the  private  worth  and  claims  to  public 
confidence  of  his  opponent — a  concession  which  I  am  very 
sure  General  Pierce  will  be  at  all  times  ready  to  recipro- 
cate." 3  Hawthorne,  in  his  campaign  life  of  Pierce,  spoke 
of  Scott  as  "  an  illustrious  soldier,  indeed,  a  patriot,  and  one 
indelibly  stamped  into  the  history  of  the  past." 3  The  New 
York  Herald,  which  supported  Pierce,  said :  "  For  the  pri* 
vate  reputation  of  General  Scott,  as  well  as  for  his  military 
character,  we  have  always  had  the  highest  regard  and  deep- 
est veneration.  He  is  a  hero — the  pink  of  chivalry  in  his 
profession ;  and  as  a  gentleman  in  social  life,  he  is  without 
stain  or  blemish." 4 

The  elation  of  the  Whigs  at  the  success  of  their  big 
Lundy's  Lane  meeting  was  of  short  duration,  for  the  August 
State  elections  were  favorable  to  the  Democrats.  The  Free- 
soil  convention  followed  hard  upon  and  its  nominations 
augured  ill  for  the  Whigs.  While  this  party  called  itself 
the  Free  -  soil  Democracy,  it  was  patent  that  it  would  this 
year  draw  away  more  Whigs  than  Democrats  in  the  doubt- 
ful States  of  New  York  and  Ohio.  The  September  elec- 
tions afforded  the  Whigs  no  comfort.  They  cast  about  how 
the  tide  of  public  sentiment  might  be  turned,  and  it  was  de- 
termined that  General  Scott  should  make  a  tour  of  the  coun- 
try and  show  himself  to  the  people,  in  the  hope  that  his  mag- 


1  New  York  Tribune,  June  llth.          3  Life  of  Pierce,  Bartlett,  p.  294. 
•  Life  of  Pierce,  Hawthorne,  p.  137.     •  Sept.  26th. 


CH.  III.]  THE  PRESIDENTIAL  CAMPAIGN  275 

nificent  martial  presence  might  kindle  enthusiasm.  Although 
Harrison  had  made  several  speeches  in  1840,  it  was  con- 
sidered beneath  the  dignity  of  a  presidential  candidate  to 
take  the  stump ;  but  a  pretext  was  found  for  this  proposed 
journey.  An  act  of  Congress  had  made  the  general  of  the 
army  one  of  a  board  to  examine  Blue  Lick  Springs,  Ky. 
with  a  view  to  locate  there  the  Western  military  asylum 
for  sick  and  disabled  soldiers ;  and,  as  Scott  took  with  him 
two  associates,  this  was  the  avowed  object  of  his  leaving 
the  headquarters  at  Washington.1  His  first  important  stop 
was  at  Pittsburgh,  where  he  made  an  off-hand  speech,  ex- 
pressing his  love  for  Pennsylvania  on  account  of  the  patriot- 
ism and  many  great  virtues  of  the  people. 

In  1852,  the  only  rail  route  from  Pittsburgh  to  Cincinnati, 
which  were  necessary  points  of  the  journey,  was  via  Cleve- 
land, and  this  fitted  well  the  object  of  the  political  mana- 
gers, for  it  gave  their  candidate  the  opportunity  to  traverse 
the  State  of  Ohio,  which  the  Free-soil  nominations  had  put  in 
the  doubtful  column.  Scott  was  received  at  Cleveland  in  a 
drenching  rain  by  crowds  of  people.  "  I  was  pained,"  he 
said  in  his  harangue,  "  that  while  I  was  comfortably  shel- 
tered in  a  covered  carriage,  you  should  have  been  exposed 
to  rain  and  mud."  A  voice  in  the  crowd,  bidding  him  wel- 
come, with  pronounced  Hibernian  accent,  suggested  the  pro- 
priety of  explaining  that  he  had  changed  his  notions  about 
Nativism,  upon  which  Scott  warmly  exclaimed  :  "  I  hear  that 
rich  brogue — I  love  to  hear  it ;  it  makes  me  remember  noble 
deeds  of  Irishmen,  many  of  whom  I  have  led  to  battle  and  to 
victory." 

The  country  between  Cleveland  and  Columbus  was  thick- 
ly settled,  and  crowds  turned  out  at  every  station  to  greet 
the  candidate  and  general.  He  repeated  at  Shelby  what  he 
had  many  times  said :  "  I  have  not  come  to  solicit  your  votes. 
I  go  on  a  mission  of  public  charity."  At  Columbus  he  made 


1  Seethe  indignant  article  in  the  New  York  Tribune  of  Sept.  27th,  deny- 
ing that  Scott  had  taken  the  stump. 


276  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1862 

a  spirited  and  manly  speech  to  a  deputation  of  Germans, 
denying  that  he  had  hanged  fifteen  of  their  countrymen  in 
Mexico. 

In  all  of  his  many  addresses,  Scott  steered  clear  of  politi- 
cal questions ;  he  thanked  the  people  for  their  hearty  greet- 
ings ;  he  praised  their  cities  and  their  States.  Ohio  was 
"  the  Empire  State  of  the  West ;"  Kentucky  was  "  famous 
for  the  valor  of  her  troops  and  for  the  beauty  of  her  daugh- 
ters ;"  Indiana  was  "  one  of  the  great  Northwestern  States — 
one  of  the  States  most  devoted  to  the  Union — one  of  its 
main  props  and  supports."  At  Madison,  Ind.,  he  again  had 
compliments  for  our  adopted  as  well  as  our  native-born 
citizens.  "  I  have,"  he  said,  "  heard  several  times  since  I 
landed  on  your  shores  the  rich  brogue  of  the  Irish  and  the 
foreign  accent  of  the  German.  They  are  welcome  to  my  ear, 
for  they  remind  me  of  many  a  well-fought  and  hard-won 
field  on  which  I  have  been  nobly  supported  by  the  sons  of 
Germany  and  of  Ireland."  Eemaining  over  Sunday  in  this 
city,  he  showed  his  liberality  by  attending  mass  at  the  Cath- 
olic church  in  the  morning,  and  the  service  of  the  Episco- 
pal church  in  the  evening. 

Scott  left  Ohio  on  his  return  trip  just  before  the  October 
State  election.  Pennsylvania  and  Indiana  voted  on  the  same 
day  for  State  officers.  All  three  went  Democratic,  and  this 
indicated  beyond  doubt  that  Pierce  would  carry  them  in 
November,  thereby  making  his  election  certain.  The  Whig 
cause  was  not  helped  by  the  stumping  tour  of  their  can- 
didate. Scott  was  far  from  happy  in  his  off-hand  ad- 
dresses ;  all  but  one  were  commonplace  and  some  afforded 
fit  subjects  for  ridicule.  The  New  York  Herald  published 
them  as  a  Democratic  campaign  document  under  the  title  of 
"  The  Modern  Epic.  Fifty-two  Speeches  by  Major-General 
Win  field  Scott,  embracing  a  Narrative  of  a  Trip  to  the  Blue 
Licks  and  back  to  Washington  in  Search  of  a  Site  for  a  Mil- 
itary Hospital.  The  Iliad  of  the  Nineteenth  Century."  * 


1  In  this  relation  of  the  tour  of  General  Scott,  I  have  carefully  compared 


CH.  III.]  ELECTION  OF  PIERCE  277 

Instead  of  travelling  around  to  be  stared  at  by  gaping 
crowds,  Pierce  spent  the  period  of  his  candidacy  in  dignified 
retreat  at  his  Concord  home,  varied  only  by  a  short  visit  to 
the  Isles  of  Shoals,  where  he  enjoyed  the  companionship  and 
unrestrained  talk  of  his  intimate  friend  Hawthorne.1  He 
had  occasion  to  write  a  few  letters  and  make  a  few  short 
speeches.  His  most  important  effort  was  when  the  news  of 
Webster's  death  came :  he  paid  a  feeling  tribute  to  the  per- 
sonal friend,  the  son  of  New  Hampshire,  and  the  American 
citizen. 

That  Pierce  was  elected  in  November  surprised  few ; 
that  his  victory  should  be  so  overwhelming  astounded  Dem- 
ocrats as  well  as  Whigs.  Scott  carried  only  four  States — 
Vermont,  Massachusetts,  Kentucky,  and  Tennessee.  Pierce 
had  254  electoral  votes  and  Scott  42.  It  was  the  largest 
majority  since  the  era  of  good  feeling  when  every  elector 
but  one  cast  his  vote  for  Monroe ;  and  the  majority  in  the 
popular  vote  of  Pierce  over  Scott  was  more  than  200,000 — 
a  larger  majority  than  had  been  received  since  record  was 
made  of  the  popular  vote.  The  Free-soil  following  showed 
a  marked  falling-off  as  compared  with  1848.8 

The  reason  of  Democratic  success  was  because  that  party 
unreservedly  endorsed  the  compromise,  and  in  its  approval 
neither  platform  nor  candidate  halted.  Other  causes  con- 
tributed to  increase  the  majorities  of  Pierce,  but  the  greater 
fidelity  of  the  Democratic  party  to  the  settlement  of  1850 
was  in  itself  sufficient  for  his  election.  The  country  was 
tired  of  slavery  agitation.  The  people  were  convinced  that 
the  status  of  every  foot  of  territory  in  the  United  States,  with 
regard  to  slavery,  was  fixed ;  that  it  had  ceased  to  be  a  polit- 


the  accounts  and  reports  of  speeches  in  the  New  York  Tribune  and  New 
York  Herald. 

1  See  Hawthorne  and  his  Wife,  vol.  i.  p.  466 ;  Hawthorne's  American 
Note-books,  vol.  ii. 

•  History  of  Presidential  Elections,  Stanwood.  Free-soil  vote,  1848^ 
291,263;  1852,155,825. 


278  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1852 

ical  question.  It  is  true  that  a  part  of  this  settlement  was 
a  slave-catching  bill,  obnoxious  to  the  North ;  but  as  it  was  a 
part  of  the  bargain,  it  must  be  enforced  in  good  faith.  The 
benefit  in  politics,  thought  the  majority,  seldom  comes  un- 
mixed. With  the  great  good  of  forever  settling  the  slavery 
question,  it  is  surely  only  a  small  ill  that  the  constitutional 
provision  for  the  rendition  of  fugitive  slaves  shall  be  carried 
out.  Thus  thought,  after  the  election,  nearly  everybody  who 
voted  for  Pierce ;  and  the  majority  of  voters  for  Scott  did 
not  differ  widely  from  this  opinion. 

The  business  interests  of  the  country  were  on  the  side  of 
the  Democrats.  The  Tribune  complained  that  the  mercan- 
tile Whigs  of  New  York  City  either  kept  away  from  the 
polls  or  voted  for  Pierce,  because  they  would  not  endorse 
the  Seward  candidate.1  Trade  was  good,  the  country  was 
very  prosperous,  and  this  state  of  affairs  would  likely  con- 
tinue under  settled  political  conditions,  of  which  there  ap- 
peared to  the  commercial  interests  greater  promise  under 
Democratic  than  Whig  rule. 

The  Democratic  party  seemed  to  have  a  noble  mission 
confided  to  it.  It  had  control  of  the  Senate  and  the  House, 
and  the  country  had  now  given  into  its  charge  the  execu- 
tive department.  It  had  gained  the  confidence  of  the  peo- 
ple because  it  professed  to  be  the  party  essentially  opposed 
to  the  agitation  of  slavery ;  because  it  was  the  party  of  pac- 
ification ;  and  because  it  insisted  upon  observing  sacredly  the 
compromises  of  the  Constitution,  and  all  other  compromises. 

For  a  proper  understanding  of  our  history,  the  events  of 
the  decade  between  1850  and  1860  must  be  considered  in  their 
bearing  on  the  success  of  the  Kepublican  party  in  the  latter 
year.  One  of  the  most  important  causes  that  led  to  this  re- 
sult was  the  publication  of  "  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin."  Of  the 
literary  forces  that  aided  in  bringing  about  the  immense 
revolution  in  public  sentiment  between  1852  and  1860,  we 


1  New  York  Tribune,  Nov.  8th. 


CH.  m.]  "UNCLE  TOM'S  CABIN"  279 

may  affirm  with  confidence  that  by  far  the  most  weighty 
was  the  influence  spread  abroad  by  this  book. 

This  story,  when  published  as  a  serial  in  the  National 
Era,  an  anti-slavery  newspaper  at  Washington,  attracted 
little  attention,  but  after  it  was  given  to  the  world  in  book 
form  in  March,  1852,  it  proved  the  most  successful  novel 
ever  written.  The  author  felt  deeply  that  the  Fugitive 
Slave  law  was  unjust,  and  that  there  was  cruelty  in  its  ex- 
ecution ;  this  inspired  her  to  pour  out  her  soul  in  a  protest 
against  slavery.  She  thought  that  if  she  could  only  make 
the  world  see  slavery  as  she  saw  it,1  her  object  would  be  ac- 
complished ;  she  would  then  have  induced  people  to  think 
right  on  the  subject. 

The  book  was  composed  under  the  most  disheartening 
circumstances.  Worn  out  with  the  care  of  many  young 
children;  overstrained  by  the  domestic  trials  of  a  large 
household ;  worried  because  her  husband's  small  income  did 
not  meet  their  frugal  needs ;  eking  out  the  poor  professor's 
salary  by  her  literary  work  in  a  house  too  small  to  afford  a 
study  for  the  author — under  such  conditions  there  came  the 
inspiration  of  her  life.  "  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin"  was  an  out- 
burst of  passion  against  the  wrong  done  to  a  race,  and  it 
was  written  with  an  intensity  of  feeling  that  left  no  room 
for  care  in  the  artistic  construction  of  the  story.  The  style 
is  commonplace,  the  language  is  often  trite  and  inelegant, 
sometimes  degenerating  into  slang,  and  the  humor  is 
strained.  Yet  Macaulay,  a  severe  critic  and  lover  of  liter- 
ary form,  was  so  impressed  by  the  powerful  book  that  he 
considered  it  on  the  whole  "  the  most  valuable  addition  that 
America  has  made  to  English  literature ;" a  and  Lowell  felt 
"that  the  secret  of  Mrs.  Stowe's  power  lay  in  that  same 
genius  by  which  the  great  successes  in  creative  literature 
have  always  been  achieved." 8 


»  Mrs.  Stowe  lived  in  Cincinnati  from  1832  to  1850. 
3  Macaulay's  Life  and  Letters,  vol.  ii.  p.  271. 
•  Life 'of  It.  B.  Stowe,  by  C.  E.  Stowe,  p.  328. 


280  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1852 

The  author  had  been  satisfied  to  gain  four  hundred  dol- 
lars a  year  by  her  pen,  but  she  had  now  written  a  book  of 
which  there  were  sold  three  thousand  copies  on  the  first  day 
of  publication,  and  in  this  country  over  three  hundred  thou- 
sand within  a  year.  England  received  the  story  with  like 
favor — the  sale  went  on  in  the  mother  country  and  her  col- 
onies until  it  reached  the  number  of  one  and  a  half  million 
copies.1  The  book  was  soon  translated  into  twenty  different 
languages.3  The  author  was  now  the  most  famous  woman 
in  America ;  she  had  gained  a  competence  and  secured  un- 
dying glory. 

The  effect  produced  by  the  book  was  immense.  Whittier 
offered  up  "  thanks  for  the  Fugitive  Slave  law ;  for  it  gave 
occasion  for  '  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin.'  "  Longfellow  thought  it 
was  one  of  the  greatest  triumphs  in  literary  history,  but  its 
moral  effect  was  a  higher  triumph  still.  Lowell  described 
the  impression  which  the  book  made  as  a  "  whirl  of  excite- 
ment."8 Choate  is  reported  to  have  said :  "  That  book  will 
make  two  millions  of  abolitionists."4  Garrison  wrote  the 
author :  "  All  the  defenders  of  slavery  have  let  me  alone  and 
are  abusing  you."  *  Sumner  said  in  the  Senate :  "  A  woman, 
inspired  by  Christian  genius,  enters  the  lists,  like  another 
Joan  of  Arc,  and  with  marvellous  powers  sweeps  the  chords 
of  the  popular  heart.  ~Now  melting  to  tears,  and  now  in- 
spiring to  rage,  her  work  everywhere  touches  the  conscience, 
and  makes  the  slave-hunter  more  hateful." 9 


1  Life  of  H.  B.  Stowe,  pp.  160  and  190.  It  is  not  known  what  has  been 
the  total  sale  in  the  United  States  since  its  publication.  See  Life -Work 
of  the  Author  of  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin,  McCray,  p.  120.  "  An  immense  edi- 
tion of  Uncle  Tom,  prepared  for  Sunday-schools,  has  been  published  in 
England." — Lieber  to  Hillard,  April,  1853,  Life  and  Letters  of  Lieber,  p. 
261.  «  Life  of  H.  B.  Stowe,  p.  195.  » Ibid.,  p.  327. 

4  New  York  Independent,  Aug.  26th,  1852. 

1  Life  of  H.  B.  Stowe,  p.  161. 

6  Speech  on  the  Fugitive  Slave  law,  Aug.  26th,  1852,  Congressional 
Globe,  vol.  xxv.  p.  1112.  Emerson  said,  in  1858:  "We  have  seen  an 
American  woman  write  a  novel,  of  which  a  million  copies  were  sold,  in 


"UNCLE  TOM'S  CABIN"  281 

The  story  appealed  particularly  to  the  emotional  nature 
of  women.  Tales  are  told  of  their  sitting  up  all  night  ab- 
sorbed in  the  work,  touched  to  the  heart  at  the  recital  of  the 
death  of  little  Eva,  and  weeping  bitter  tears  at  the  cruel 
murder  of  Uncle  Tom.  One  woman  wrote  that  she  could 
no  more  leave  the  story  than  she  could  have  left  a  dying 
child.  A  cool-headed  London  printer  took  the  book  home 
at  night  to  read,  with  the  view  of  deciding  whether  it  would 
be  a  paying  publication.  He  was  so  affected,  first  by  laugh- 
ter and  then  by  tears,  that  he  ended  with  a  distrust  of  his 
literary  judgment,  thinking  that  his  emotion  came  from 
physical  weakness;  so  he  tried  the  story  on  his  wife,  a 
strong-minded  woman,  and  got  her  approval  before  he 
deemed  it  wise  to  print  the  book.1 

The  novel  was  published  as  a  serial  in  three  daily  news- 
papers of  Paris ;  and  one  journal,  noted  for  its  excellent  lit- 
erary criticism,  said  that  the  intense  interest  awakened  by 
"  Uncle  Tom  "  surpassed  that  which  had  been  excited  by  the 
publication  of  "  The  Three  Guardsmen "  of  Alexander  Du- 
mas, or  Eugene  Sue's  "  Mysteries  of  Paris." a  In  Italy  the 


all  languages,  and  which  had  one  merit,  of  speaking  to  the  universal 
heart,  and  was  read  with  equal  interest  to  three  audiences — namely,  in  the 
parlor,  in  the  kitchen,  and  in  the  nursery  of  every  house." — Lecture  on 
Success. 

»  Life  of  H.  B.  Stowe,  pp.  161  and  191. 

8  Le  Temps.  Life -Work  of  the  Author  of  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin,  McCray, 
p.  110. 

"  Our  most  prominent  and  extraordinary  representative  abroad  is  really 
Uncle  Tom.  .  .  .  Creameries,  dry-goods  and  eating  shops  are  named  after 
his  humble  abode.  .  .  .  Four  or  five  children's  books  are  published  in 
cheap  form  by  societies  of  religious  instruction,  extracted  from  or  built 
upon  Mrs.  Stowe's  masterpiece,  and  bearing  its  title  as  their  best  recom- 
mendation. You  have  not  forgotten  George  Sand's  generous  homage  of 
admiration  paid  to  Mrs.  Stowe  and  her  book;  now  we  have  Heinrich 
Heine,  the  greatest  living  wit  of  Europe,  taking  lessons  in  reading  the 
Scriptures  from  the  American  slave,  introducing  him  with  honor  and  by 
name  among  the  first  creators  and  creatures  of  European  literature." — 
Paris  correspondence  New  York  Tribune,  Sept.  28th,  1854.  "Everybody 


282  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [185i 

book  was  received  with  such  fervor  that  the  pope  felt 
obliged  to  prohibit  its  circulation  in  his  dominions.1 

Never  but  once  before  had  a  novel  produced  such  an  ex- 
citement. One  cannot  fail  to  be  struck  with  the  likeness 
between  the  impression  occasioned  by  Rousseau's  story  and 
that  made  by  "  Uncle  Tom."  Kant  became  so  engrossed  in 
the  perusal  of  the  "  Nouvelle  Heloise"  that  he  failed,  for  the 
only  time  in  his  life,  to  take  his  accustomed  afternoon  walk  ;2 
and  Lord  Palmerston,  who  had  not  read  a  novel  for  thirty 
years,  read  "  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin  "  three  times,  and,  instead  of 
making  a  flippant  criticism,  which  one  might  have  expected 
from  a  statesman  who  shocked  grave  men  by  his  levity,  he 
admired  the  book, "  not  only  for  the  story  but  for  the  states- 
manship of  it." 3 

The  "  Nouvelle  Heloise  "  spoke  for  the  liberty  and  dignity 
of  the  peasant,  implying  that  he  as  well  as  the  king  was  a 
man ;  while  "  Uncle  Tom  "  pleaded  for  the  liberty  of  the  slave. 
The  one  had  its  part  in  the  social  revolution  of  1789,  and 
the  other  had  an  influence  on  the  political  revolution  of 
1860. 

The  dramatic  strength  of  the  story  was  not  lost  upon  the 
theatrical  managers.  It  soon  appeared  on  the  stage  in  Bos- 
ton, and  the  first  time  that  Mrs.  Stowe,  then  a  woman  of 
forty -one,  ever  went  to  the  theatre  was  when  she  saw  a 
dramatization  of  her  own  immortal  work.  She  was  sensi- 
bly moved  at  the  exquisite  interpretation  of  Topsy  by  Mrs. 
Howard,  and  by  the  acting  of  little  Cordelia  Howard,  who 
struck  the  audience  with  wonder,  and  drew  tears  from  the 
most  callous  by  a  lifelike  impersonation  of  little  Eva.4  In 
New  York  the  play  proved  the  theatrical  success  of  the  sea- 


in  Germany  has  read  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin."— Letter  of  Motley,  Dec.  28d, 
1852,  Motley's  Letters,  vol.  i.  p.  148. 

1  American  Almanac,  1854,  p.  348 ;  New  York  Herald,  May  31st,  1853. 

*  Life  of  Rousseau,  John  Morley,  vol.  ii.  p.  33. 

8  Life -Work  of  the  Author  of  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin,  McCray,  p.  109. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  121. 


CH.  III.]  "  UNCLE  TOM'S  CABIN  "  283 

son.  The  effect  it  produced  on  the  frequenters  of  the  Chat- 
ham Street  and  Bowery  theatres — at  both  of  which  places 
"  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin  "  remained  long  on  the  boards— was  a 
most  curious  study.  The  men  and  boys  who  sought  their 
amusement  at  those  theatres  belonged  to  the  mobs  that 
hooted  and  insulted  abolitionists,  and  broke  up  anti-slavery 
conventions.  But  when  they  saw  "abolition  dramatized," 
as  the  play  was  cleverly  called,  they  went  wild  at  the  es- 
cape of  Eliza  across  the  river;  they  were  heartily  in  sym- 
pathy with  the  forcible  resistance  to  the  Fugitive  Slave  law 
made  by  George  Harris  and  his  friends ;  they  applauded 
vociferously  the  allusions  to  human  rights ;  they  were  dis- 
gusted with  the  professional  tone  of  the  auctioneer  and  the 
business-like  action  of  the  negro-buyers  in  the  slave-market 
scene ;  and  they  wept  sincerely  at  the  death  of  Uncle  Tom.1 
Men  and  boys  who  never  read  a  book  were  impressed  and 
swayed  by  this  dramatic  performance.  In  the  day  when 
the  fashion  of  even  the  metropolitan  theatres  was  a  night- 
ly change  of  programme,  the  run  of  "  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin  " 
was  counted  by  more  than  a  hundred  performances  ;a  and 
when  little  Cordelia  Howard  had  a  benefit  on  her  three 
hundred  and  twenty-fifth  consecutive  impersonation  of  Eva, 
it  was  spoken  of  as  being  without  a  parallel  in  the  history 
of  the  stage.'  In  every  city  north  of  Mason  and  Dixon's 
line  where  there  was  a  theatre,  the  managers  found  it  prof- 
itable, and  even  necessary,  to  comply  with  the  popular  de- 
mand for  a  representation  of  this  powerful  play. 

It  was,  perhaps,  not  surprising  that  "  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin  " 
should  be  given  at  two  theatres  in  London,  for  the  philan- 
thropic mind  of  England  was  exercised  on  the  subject  of 
slavery  in  America;  but  it  was  remarkable  that  the  gay 
Parisians  should  have  filled  two  theatres  nightly  to  laugh 


1  New  York  Tribune,  Aug.  8th  and  Sept.  19th,  1853. 

2  Life -Work  of  the  Author  of  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin,  McCray,  p.  133. 
8  New  York  Tribune,  May  13th,  1854. 


284  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1852 

at  Topsy  and  weep  at  the  hard  fate  of  Uncle  Tom.1  Cer- 
tainly the  inhabitants  of  this  brilliant  city  knew  less  and 
cared  less  for  the  oppressed  black  than  did  their  neighbors 
across  the  Channel,  and  the  interest  which  they  took  in  this 
portrayal  of  life  among  the  lowly  is  an  earnest  tribute  to 
the  dramatic  force  of  the  work.3 

Some  writers  have  depreciated  the  political  effect  of  "  Un- 
cle Tom's  Cabin  "  because  the  results  were  not  immediate. 
"It  deepens  the  horror  of  servitude,"  wrote  George  Tick- 
nor,  "  but  it  does  not  affect  a  single  vote."  *  In  reviewing 
the  election  of  1852  one  could  not  then  have  written  other- 
wise.* It  is  probably  true  that  the  seed  sown  by  works 
of  fiction  germinates  slowly.  The  "  Nouvelle  Heloise  "  and 
"ISmile"  were  published  nearly  a  generation  before  the 
French  Revolution  began.  Because  many  people  of  France 
applauded  the  democratic  sentiment  implied  by  the  words 
in  the  "Nouvelle  Heloise" — "I  would  rather  be  the  wife 
of  a  charcoal-burner  than  the  mistress  of  a  king"  —  they 
did  not  hurl  Pompadour  from  her  seat  of  power ;  and  al- 
though "  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin  "  was  directed  against  the  Fu- 
gitive Slave  law,  it  did  not  effect  its  repeal. 

The  great  influence  of  Mrs.  Stowe's  book,  however,  was 
shown  in  bringing  home  to  the  hearts  of  the  people  the 
conviction  that  slavery  is  an  injustice ;  and,  indeed,  the  im- 
pression it  made  upon  bearded  men  was  not  so  powerful 
as  its  appeal  to  women  and  boys.  The  mother's  opinion 
was  a  potent  educator  in  politics  between  1852  and  1860, 
and  boys  in  their  teens  in  the  one  year  were  voters  in  the 


1  Life  of  H.  B.  Stowe,  p.  192 ;  Bibliographical  Account  ofTTncle  Tom's 
Cabin,  prefaced  to  edition  of  1887,  p.  xlvi. 

•  The  hold  it  still  has  (in  1890)  on  the  American  stage  is  similar  evi- 
dence.   It  is  one  of  those  plays  that  each  generation  must  see.    The  book 
is  still  widely  read,  as  every  bookseller  and  librarian  knows.    In  1888  and 
1889  it  headed  the  list  in  fiction  in  greatest  demand  at  the  New  York  free 
circulating  library.     The  Critic,  vol.  xii.  p.  156 ;  The  Nation,  vol.  1.  p.  223, 

•  Dec.  20th,  1852.     Life  of  George  Ticknor,  vol.  i.  p.  286. 
4  See  p.  278. 


CH.IIL]  "UNCLE  TOM'S  CABIN"  285 

other.  It  is  often  remarked  that  previous  to  the  war  the 
Republican  party  attracted  the  great  majority  of  school- 
boys, and  that  the  first  voters  were  an  important  factor  in 
its  final  success.  The  bright  boys  of  France,  who  in  their 
youth  read  the  "Nouvelle  Heloise"  and  "Smile"  became 
revolutionists  in  1789,  and  the  youth  of  America  whose  first 
ideas  on  slavery  were  formed  by  reading  "Uncle  Tom's 
Cabin  "  were  ready  to  vote  with  the  party  whose  existence 
was  based  on  opposition  to  an  extension  of  the  great  evil. 

It  is  quite  true  that  the  moral  and  literary  causes  which 
aided  in  bringing  about  the  abolition  of  slavery  needed  po- 
litical events  to  give  them  force  and  to  shape  their  action. 
Had  it  not  been  for  the  fatuity  of  the  one  party  and  the 
wisdom  of  the  other  in  forcing  an  issue  that  was  broad 
enough  to  include  many  shades  of  opinion,  "  Uncle  Tom's 
Cabin  "  and  other  anti-slavery  literature  might  have  made 
many  abolitionists,  but  would  not  have  made  enough  Re- 
publicans to  elect  Lincoln  in  1860.  The  Republican  party, 
however,  could  not  have  succeeded  without  the  backing  of 
a  multitude  of  men  and  women  who  were  Republicans  be- 
cause they  believed  slavery  to  be  a  cruel  wrong,  opposed  to 
the  law  of  God  and  to  the  best  interests  of  humanity. 

The  election  of  1852  gave  the  death-blow  to  the  "Whig 
party;  it  never  entered  another  presidential  contest.1  Web- 
ster, as  well  as  Clay,  died  before  his  party  received  this 
crushing  defeat,  which,  indeed,  he  had  predicted.3  His  phys- 
ical frame  worn  out,  he  went  early  in  September  home  to 
Marshfield  to  die.  The  story  of  his  last  days,  as  told  with 
loving  detail  by  his  friend  and  biographer,  is  of  intense  in- 
terest to  the  hero- worshipper,  and  has  likewise  pointed  the 
moral  of  many  a  Christian  sermon.  The  conversations  of 
great  minds  that,  unimpaired,  deliver  themselves  at  the  ap- 
proach of  death  to  introspection  are,  like  the  most  famous 


1  That  is,  with  an  independent  nomination.     See  Chap.  VIII. 
1  New  York  Herald,  Nov.  3d ;  Harvey's  Reminiscences,  p.  19& 


286  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1862 

of  all,  the  discourse  of  Socrates  in  the  Phsedo,  a  boon  to 
humankind.  The  mind  of  Webster  was  perfectly  clear,  and 
when  all  earthly  striving  was  over,  his  true  nature  shone  out 
in  the  expression  of  thoughts  that  filled  his  soul.  Speaking 
of  the  love  of  nature  growing  stronger  with  time,  be  said : 
"The  man  who  has  not  abandoned  himself  to  sensuality 
feels,  as  years  advance  and  old  age  comes  on,  a  greater  love 
of  mother  Earth,  a  greater  willingness  and  even  desire  to 
return  to  her  bosom  and  mingle  again  with  this  universal 
frame  of  things  from  which  he  spran'g." l  Two  weeks  be- 
fore he  died,  he  wrote  what  he  wished  inscribed  on  his  mon- 
ument :  "  Philosophical  argument,  especially  that  drawn  from 
the  vastness  of  the  universe  in  comparison  with  the  appar- 
ent insignificance  of  this  globe,  has  sometimes  shaken  my 
reason  for  the  faith  that  is  within  me ;  but  my  heart  has 
assured  and  reassured  me  that  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ 
must  be  a  divine  reality."  The  day  before  his  death,  he 
said  with  perfect  calmness  to  his  physician :  "  Doctor,  you 
have  carried  me  through  the  night,  I  think  you  will  get  me 
through  to-day ;  I  shall  die  to-night."  The  doctor  honestly 
replied :  "  You  are  right,  sir." a 

His  family,  friends,  and  servants,  having  assembled  in  his 
room,  he  spoke  to  them  "  in  a  strong,  full  voice,  and  with 
his  usual  modulation  and  emphasis :  '  No  man  who  is  not  a 
brute  can  say  that  he  is  not  afraid  of  death.  No  man  can 
come  back  from  that  bourn ;  no  man  can  comprehend  the 
will  or  works  of  God.  That  there  is  a  God,  all  must  ac- 
knowledge. I  see  him  in  all  these  wondrous  works,  him- 
self how  wondrous !' " 3 

Eloquent  in  life,  Webster  was  sublime  in  death.  He  took 
leave  of  his  household  one  by  one,  addressing  to  each  fitting 
words  of  consolation.  He  wanted  to  know  the  gradual  steps 
towards  dissolution,  and  calmly  discussed  them  with  his  phy- 
sician. At  one  time,  awaking  from  a  partial  stupor  which 
preceded  death,  he  heard  repeated  the  words  of  the  ]5salm 


1  Curtis,  vol.  ii.  p.  668.  » Ibid.,  p.  696.  '  Ibid.,  p.  697. 


CH.  III.]  DEATH  OF  WEBSTER  287 

which  has  smoothed  the  death-pillow  of  many  a  Christian : 
"  Yea,  though  I  walk  through  the  valley  of  the  shadow  of 
death,  I  will  fear  no  evil,  for  thou  art  with  me ;  thy  rod 
and  thy  staff,  they  comfort  me."  The  dying  statesman  ex- 
claimed :  " '  Yes,  thy  rod — thy  staff — but  the  fact,  the  fact  I 
want,' . . .  for  he  was  not  certain  whether  the  words  that  had 
been  repeated  to  him  were  intended  as  an  intimation  that  he 
was  already  in  the  dark  valley." '  Waking  up  again  past 
midnight,  and  conscious  that  he  was  living,  he  uttered  the 
well-known  words,  "  I  still  live."  Letter  he  said  something 
about  poetry,  and  his  son  repeated  one  of  the  verses  of  Gray's 
Elegy.  He  heard  it  and  smiled.  In  the  early  morning  Web- 
ster's soul  went  out  with  the  tide.2 

It  was  a  beautiful  Sunday  morning  of  an  Indian  summer's 
day  when  the  sad  tidings  reached  Boston,  which  came  home 
to  nearly  all  of  her  citizens  as  a  personal  sorrow.  In  all  the 
cities  of  the  land  mourning  emblems  were  displayed  and 
minute-guns  were  fired.  New  York  City  and  Washington 
grieved  for  him  as  for  a  friend.  During  the  week  there 
were  the  usual  manifestations  of  mourning  by  the  govern- 
ment at  Washington  ;  the  various  departments  were  closed, 
and  the  public  buildings  were  draped  with  emblems  of  woe. 
Festal  scenes  and  celebrations  were  postponed,  and  on  the 
day  of  his  funeral  business  was  suspended  in  nearly  all  the 
cities  during  the  hours  when  he  was  borne  to  his  last  resting- 
place.  "  From  east  to  west,"  said  Edward  Everett,  "  and 
from  north  to  south,  a  voice  of  lamentation  has  already  gone 
forth,  such  as  has  not  echoed  through  the  land  since  the 
death  of  him  who  was  first  in  war,  first  in  peace,  and  first  in 
the  hearts  of  his  countrymen." 3 

By  Webster's  own  request,  he  had  a  modest  country  fu- 
neral. The  services  were  conducted  in  his  Marshfield  home. 


1  Curtis,  vol.  ii.  p.  700. 

1  Ibid.,  p.  701.    Webster  died  Oct.  24th  ;  he  was  in  his  seventy-first  year. 
*  Speech  at  Faneuil  Hall,  Oct.  27th,  Works,  vol.  iii.  p.  158.     See  also 
diary  of  B.  H.  Dana,  Life,  by  C.  F.  Adams,  vol.  i.  p.  222. 


288  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1862 

The  coffin  was  borne  to  the  tomb  by  six  of  the  neighboring 
farmers,  and  the  multitude  followed  slowly  and  reverently. 
To  the  Marshfield  farmers  and  Green  Harbor  fishermen 
Webster  was  a  companion  and  a  friend ;  by  them  he  was 
mourned  sincerely  as  one  of  their  own  fellowship.  It  could 
not  be  said  of  him  that  a  prophet  is  not  without  honor  save 
in  his  own  country.  One  man  in  a  plain  and  rustic  garb 
paid  the  most  eloquent  of  all  tributes  to  the  mighty  dead: 
"  Daniel  Webster,  the  world  without  you  will  seem  lone- 
some," 1  A  Massachusetts  orator  of  our  day  has  truly  said : 
"  Massachusetts  smote  and  broke  the  heart  of  Webster,  her 
idol,  and  then  broke  her  own  above  his  grave."2 

On  Sunday,  the  31st  of  October,  one  week  after  his  death, 
nearly  all  the  preachers  of  the  North  delivered  sermons  on 
the  life  and  death  of  Daniel  Webster.9  In  the  main,  they 
were  highly  eulogistic.  If,  indeed,  a  preacher  permitted 
himself  to  speak  of  the  failings  of  the  great  man,  it  was  in 
such  a  manner  as  one  might  in  all  gentleness  speak  of  the 
frailty  of  a  dear  departed  friend.  To  this  there  was  one 
notable  exception — the  sermon  of  Theodore  Parker,  delivered 
in  the  Boston  Melodeon.  The  preacher  appeared  to  wish 
the  good  which  Webster  did  interred  with  his  bones  and  the 
evil  to  live  after  him.  Even  had  the  discourse  been  true,  it 
was,  considering  the  occasion,  indecent.  But  in  it  there  was 
much  of  error.  The  current  gossip  of  Boston  and  the  pun- 
gent tales  of  Washington  correspondents  were  crystallized 
into  a  serious  utterance  and  given  the  stamp  of  a  scholar. 


1  Curtis,  vol.  ii.  p.  704.  "  As  for  thinking  of  America  without  Web- 
ster, it  seems  like  thinking  of  her  without  Niagara,  or  the  Mississippi,  or 
any  other  of  the  magnificent  natural  features  which  had  belonged  to  her 
since  I  grew  up,  and  seemed  likely  to  endure  forever." — Letter  of  J.  L. 
Motley,  from  Dresden,  Dec.  23d,  1852,  Motley's  Correspondence,  vol.  i.  p. 
149. 

*  J.  D.  Long,  Webster  Centennial,  vol.  i.  p.  165. 

'  There  were  more  than  one  hundred  and  fifty  sermons  on  the  death 
of  Webster  printed  in  pamphlet  form.  Memorandum  of  Theo.  Parker 
on  bound  collection  of  them  in  Boston  Public  Library. 


CH.  III.]  THEODORE  PARKER  289 

He,  who  felt  competent  to  separate  the  fable  from  the  truth 
in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  showed  great  credulity  in 
estimating  the  history  of  his  own  day.  Apparently  Parker 
had  misgivings  about  his  facts,  for  a  few  months  later  we 
find  him  writing  Sumner  and  Giddings  in  the  endeavor  to 
get  evidence  concerning  Webster's  recreancy  to  the  anti- 
slavery  cause  and  acceptance  of  money  gifts.1  A  teacher 
of  young  men,  for  it  was  to  them  that  this  discourse  was  ad- 
dressed, should  have  made  sure  of  his  facts  before  he  gave 
vent  to  such  vituperative  and  vindictive  words.8 

Yet  we  may  not  utterly  condemn  Parker.  He  was  sin- 
cere, and  meant  to  be  truthful ;  but  he  had  that  mental  con- 
stitution which  can  see  only  its  side  of  any  question,  and 
he  thought  himself  a  second  Luther,  commissioned  to  rebuke 
sin  in  high  places.8  He  was,  however,  a  scholar ;  he  knew 
many  languages ;  his  books  were  his  friends  and  compan- 
ions.4 While  not  so  profound  a  student  of  philosophy  and 
theology  as  his  German  contemporaries,  he  illuminated 
transcendentalism  by  a  practical  knowledge  of  man ;  and 
had  he  not  enlisted  in  the  anti-slavery  cause  he  would  un- 
doubtedly have  left  behind  him  a  theological  work  of  merit, 
for  he  was  the  exponent  of  radical  Unitarianism.  "  Sup- 
pose," he  writes  in  his  diary,  "  I  could  have  given  all  the  at- 
tention to  theology  that  I  have  been  forced  to  pay  to  poli- 
tics and  slavery,  how  much  I  might  have  done!  I  was 
meant  for  a  philosopher,  and  the  times  call  for  a  stump 
orator." 6  

1  See  letters  from  Giddings  and  Sumner  of  Jan.,  1853,  to  Parker,  fur- 
nished by  F.  B.  Sanborn  to  the  Springfield  Republican,  copied  into  the  Bos- 
ton Transcript,  Jan.  25th,  1882.  I  am  indebted  to  Mr.  Lodge  for  this  refer- 
ence. See  also  Parker's  preface  to  this  sermon,  written  March  7th,  1853. 

•  The  important  statements  in  this  sermon  are  carefully  examined,  and 
many  of  them  refuted,  by  George  T.  Curtis  in  his  monologue  on  Last 
Days  of  Daniel  Webster,  written  in  1877.     Frothingham  says  the  sermon 
was  prepared  with  care.     Life  of  Parker,  pp.  339,  420. 

1  Recollections  and  Impressions,  O.  B.  Frothingham,  p.  54. 

*  His  library  of  13,000  volumes  was  left  the  Boston  Public  Library. 
1  Life  and  Correspondence  of  Theo.  Parker,  Weiss,  vol.  ii.  p.  115. 

L— 19 


290  FILLMORE'S   ADMINISTRATION  [1852 

Parker  was,  said  Emerson,  "  a  man  of  study  fit  for  a  man 
of  the  world." '  Though  sympathizing  for  many  years  with 
the  abolitionists,  it  was  not  until  after  the  passage  of  the 
Fugitive  Slave  law  that  he  devoted  himself  heartily  to  their 
work.  He  was  the  pastor,  the  especial  friend  and  counsel, 
of  runaway  negroes.  His  efforts  in  their  behalf  were  untir- 
ing. At  the  time  of  the  Shadrach  rescue  he  wrote  in  his 
diary  :  "  These  are  sad  times  to  live  in,  but  I  should  be  sorry 
not  to  have  lived  in  them.  It  will  seem  a  little  strange  one 
or  two  hundred  years  hence  that  a  plain  humble  scholar  of 
Boston  was  continually  interrupted  in  his  studies,  and  could 
not  write  his  book,  for  stopping  to  look  after  fugitive  slaves 
— his  own  parishioners!"2  Parker  was  bitter  and  harsh 
towards  his  opponents,  for  years  of  religious  contention 
fitted  him  for  the  part  of  the  iconoclastic  reformer  of  pol- 
itics. Deeming  Webster  responsible  for  the  Fugitive  Slave 
law,  he  could  not  do  otherwise  than  magnify  the  vices  and 
belittle  the  virtues  of  this  great  statesman. 

Parker  spoke  every  Sunday  to  two  or  three  thousand 
people  in  the  Melodeon  or  the  Music  Hall,  and  exercised 
great  influence.  He  lacked  many  graces  of  oratory ;  it  was 
the  pregnant  matter  of  his  discourse  that  held  his  large  audi- 
ence captive.  His  sermon  on  Webster  moulded  many  opin- 
ions. Of  all  indictments  it  is  the  most  severe.  It  would, 
indeed,  be  deplorable  if  it  presented  the  true  character  of 
the  man  who  had  received  so  much  honor  from  his  country- 
men, and  it  is  gratifying  that  fewer  men  now  believe  the 
charges  than  when  the  sermon  was  delivered ;  that  instead 
of  acknowledging  "  its  analytical  justice,  its  fidelity," '  it  is 
regarded  as  the  raving  of  an  honest  fanatic. 

Parker  and  Wendell  Phillips  may  be  said  to  be  the  ex- 
ponents of  abolitionism  in  the  decade  of  1850-60.  They  do 


1  Life  of  Parker,  Frothingham,  p.  549. 

*  Feb.  21st,  1851,  Life  and  Correspondence  of  Theo.  Parker,  Weiss,  vol. 
ii.  p.  105. 

'  Expressions  of  the  New  Hampshire  Independent  (Dem.),  1852. 


CH.  III.]  EDWARD  EVERETT  291 

not  fill  the  period  as  Garrison  did  that  of  1830-40 ;  for  the 
reformer  who  begins  the  agitation  has  the  hardest  work  and 
receives  the  greatest  honor.  It  had  now  become  respectable 
to  be  an  abolitionist ;  his  political  power  was  not  to  be  de- 
spised. The  abolitionists  shed  no  tears  over  the  defeat  of 
Scott ;  they  had  no  more  regard  for  the  Whig  than  for  the 
Democratic  party.1  Most  of  them  were  dismayed  at  the 
falling-off  of  the  Free-soil  vote ;  but  Garrison,  who  did  not 
believe  in  political  action,  had  even  for  this  no  regret." 

The  President  graced  his  administration  by  the  appoint- 
ment of  Edward  Everett,  of  Massachusetts,  as  Secretary  of 
State  to  succeed  Webster.  Everett  graduated  from  Harvard 
at  the  age  of  seventeen,  taking  the  first  college  honors  of 
his  class ;  two  years  later  he  became  a  Unitarian  preacher, 
and  then  gave  promise  of  that  eloquence  for  which  in  after- 
years  he  was  so  famed.  When  twenty-one,  he  was  appointed 
professor  of  Greek  literature  at  Harvard  College,  and  to  fit 
himself  for  the  place  he  went  abroad  and  studied  four  years, 
two  of  which  were  passed  at  the  University  of  Gottingen. 
Yictor  Cousin,  the  philosopher  and  the  translator  of  Plato, 
who  met  Everett  in  Germany,  said  he  was  one  of  the  best 
of  Greek  scholars.  In  1820,  when  twenty-six,  he  preached 
a  sermon  in  the  hall  of  the  House  of  Representatives  at 
Washington  on  the  text,  "  Brethren,  the  time  is  short,"  de- 
lighting the  orators,  the  jurists,  and  the  men  of  state  who 
went  to  hear  him.  Justice  Story  wrote :  "  The  sermon  was 
truly  splendid,  and  was  heard  with  breathless  silence."  Rufus 
King,  much  affected,  said  that  he  "had  never  heard  a  dis- 
course so  full  of  unction,  eloquence,  and  good  taste." 3  John 
Quincy  Adams,  who  was  nothing  if  not  critical,  confided  to 
his  diary  that "  it  was  without  comparison  the  most  splendid 


1  See  Life  of  Garrison,  vol.  iii.  p.  370 ;  also  letter  of  Theo.  Parker  to 
Sumner,  Dec.  20th,  1852.  "  In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  there  is 
but  one  party ;  it  is  the  party  of  slavery.  It  has  two  divisions — the  coti 
droit  and  the  cote  gaitche,  the  Democrat  and  the  Whig." — Life  and  Cor- 
respondence, Weiss,  vol.  ii.  p.  216.  *  Life  of  Garrison,  vol.  iii.  p.  371. 

•  Life  and  Letters  of  Joseph  Story,  vol.  i.  p.  382. 


392  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1852 

composition  as  a  sermon  that  I  ever  heard  delivered." '  In 
this  same  year  Everett  became  editor  of  the  North  Amer- 
ican Review ;  he  was  then  and  afterwards  a  frequent  con- 
tributor, and  shared  with  many  other  gifted  minds  the  honor 
of  making  this  quarterly  a  monument  of  American  scholar- 
ship and  fair-minded  criticism.  He  was  elected  representa- 
tive and  served  ten  years  in  Congress.  He  made  a  diligent 
and  conscientious  member,  for  he  knew  thoroughly  what  it 
was  his  business  to  know  ;  his  name  is  connected  with  many 
important  measures,  but  his  service  was  rather  useful  than 
brilliant.  Afterwards  the  people  chose  him  governor  of  his 
commonwealth  for  four  terms,  and  for  a  fifth  he  was  only  de- 
feated by  a  few  votes.  He  did  not  grieve,  however,  at  quit- 
ting active  politics,  for  he  had  again  the  yearning  of  a 
scholar  for  Europe.  Webster,  writing  to  him  in  Italy,  spoke 
of  the  enjoyment  "  that  Italy  tenders  to  the  taste  of  the  cul- 
tivated," and  especially  "  to  you,  so  full  and  fresh  with  his- 
tory and  the  classics." 3  This  same  year  "Webster  became 
Secretary  of  State,  and  was  able  to  secure  for  his  friend  the 
appointment  of  minister  to  England. 

No  American  ever  divined  or  appreciated  Europe  better 
than  Everett,  yet  he  was  as  intensely  national  in  feeling  and 
expression  as  were  those  Western  politicians  who  paraded 
their  contempt  of  Europe  on  the  stump  and  in  Congress. 
His  friend  Hillard  even  criticised  his  orations  for  their 
vaunting  strain  in  regard  to  our  country  and  institutions. 
Knowing  thoroughly  many  tongues,  this  true  patriot  still 
could  say :  "  The  sound  of  my  native  language  beyond  the 
sea  is  a  music  to  my  ear  beyond  the  richest  strains  of  Tus- 
can softness  or  Castilian  majesty." 

Everett  returned  to  the  United  States  in  1845,  and  one 
year  later  was  chosen  president  of  Harvard  College.  He 
retained  the  position  three  years,  until  obliged  to  resign  it  on 
account  of  ill-health. 


1  Memoir  of  John  Quincy  Adams,  vol.  iy.  p.  52. 
1  Private  Correspondence,  vol.  ii.  p.  101. 


CH.IIL]  EDWARD  EVERETT  298 

In  this  hurrying  country  and  this  hurrying  age  of  ours, 
what  a  delight  there  is  in  the  review  of  the  life  of  such  a 
ripe  scholar,  accomplished  diplomat,  and  finished  orator! 
As  we  view  the  constant  strife  for  wealth  and  political 
power  and  reflect  that  Everett  might  well  have  aspired  to 
either,  how  impressive  is  his  choice  of  the  better  part — 
that  of  laboring  his  whole  life  for  accurate  learning  and 
aiming  at  the  highest  eloquence !  In  a  time  when  so  much 
superficial  work  is  done,  how  worthy  of  admiration  are  the 
consummate  art  and  the  'painstaking  care,  in  the  study  and 
on  the  platform,  of  Everett,  whose  very  stuff  of  conscience 
would  not  let  him  do  aught  but  perfect  work !  His  ora- 
tions, wrote  Hillard,  are  "  nearly  faultless  as  literary  pro- 
ductions. He  is  as  careful  to  select  the  right  word  as  a 
workman  in  mosaic  is  to  pick  out  the  exact  shade  of  color 
which  he  requires." 

The  unalloyed  friendship  that  existed  between  Webster 
and  Everett  is  a  beautiful  trait,  ennobling  them  both.  Jeal- 
ousy did  not  exist  on  the  part  of  the  one,  nor  envy  on  the 
part  of  the  other.  "When  I  entered  public  life,"  Everett 
said,  "it  was  with  his  encouragement."1  Webster  wrote 
Everett :  "  I  feel  that  you  are  among  the  foremost  of  those 
who,  in  the  course  of  the  last  thirty  years,  have  helped  me 
along,  by  favor,  by  good  advice,  and  by  large  contributions 
to  my  stock  of  knowledge,"  Everett,  by  the  choice  of  his 
friend,  edited  Webster's  works,  and  wrote  the  chaste  and 
temperate  biographical  memoir  prefixed  to  the  first  volume. 
Three  months  before  his  death,  Webster  penned  to  Everett 
these  words  of  deep  feeling :  "  We  now  and  then  see,  stretch- 
ing across  the  heavens,  a  long  streak  of  clear,  blue,  cerulean 
sky,  without  cloud  or  mist  or  haze.  And  such  appears  to 
me  our  acquaintance,  from  the  time  when  I  heard  you  for  a 
week  recite  your  lessons  in  the  little  school-house  in  Short 
Street  to  the  date  hereof." a 


1  Speech  on  the  death  of  Daniel  Webster,  Oct.  27th,  1852. 

9  Letter  of  July  21st,  1852.    In  addition  to  authorities  already  cited,  I 


294  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1851 

While  Everett's  greatest  triumphs  were  gained  on  the 
platform  before  the  cultivated  people  who  naturally  assem- 
bled to  hear  him,  and  with  whom  he  felt  in  perfect  accord, 
yet  when  called  to  more  active  duty  he  acquitted  himself 
with  credit.  Entering  upon  his  brief  service  in  the  State 
department,  he  was  immediately  obliged  to  take  up  the 
Cuban  question  and  give  an  answer  to  official  notes  from 
England  and  France.  These  two  nations  had  proposed  a 
tripartite  convention  with  the  United  States,  by  virtue  of 
which  the  three  powers  should  guarantee  the  possession  of 
Cuba  to  Spain  and  jointly  and  severally  disclaim,  now  and 
forever,  all  intention  to  obtain  possession  of  that  island.  In 
his  reply  Everett's  endeavor  was,  "  to  assert  a  line  of  princi- 
ple and  of  policy  which  would  be  generally  approved  by  the 
country ;  which  would  show  that  it  was  possible  to  reconcile 
the  progressive  spirit  and  tendency  of  the  country  and  of 
the  age  with  the  preservation  of  the  public  faith,  with  the 
sanctity  of  the  public  honor,  and  with  the  dictates  of  an  en- 
lightened and  liberal  conservatism."  * 

Never  had  the  success  of  a  Secretary  of  State  been  more 
complete;  and  yet  the  Cuban  question  was  an  extremely 
delicate  one  to  handle.  The  South  had  for  years  been  anx- 
ious to  acquire  Cuba,  and  this  desire  was  now  increased  by 
the  disappointment  at  the  outcome  of  the  Mexican  conquests, 
for  slavery,  on  both  economical  and  political  grounds,  needed 
expansion.  On  the  other  hand,  the  majority  of  the  North- 
ern people  were  opposed  to  the  acquisition  of  more  slave 


have,  in  this  characterization  of  Everett,  drawn  from  Everett's  Works, 
vol.  i.  and  iii. ;  article  by  George  S.  Hillard,  North  American  Review,  Jan., 
1837  ;  article  by  C.  C.  Felton,  North  American  Review,  Oct.,  1850 ;  article 
on  Edward  Everett,  in  Appletons'  Cyclopaedia  of  Biography,  by  S.  A.  Alli- 
bone;  article  in  Encyclopaedia  Britannica,  by  Rev.  E.  E.  Hale;  Forney's 
Anecdotes  of  Public  Men,  vol.  ii.  "  A.  ceux  qui  douteraient  qu'on  pu*t 
rencontrer  aux  fitats-Unis  le  type  parfait  du  scholar  et  du  gentleman,  je 
citerais  M.  Ed.  Everett,  qui  vit  a  Cambridge."  —  Promenade  en  Am6- 
rique,  Ampere,  tome  i.  p.  45. 

1  Statement  by  Everett,  speech  in  the  Senate,  March  21st,  1853. 


CH.  Ill]  EVERETT  ON   CUBA  295 

territory,  although  a  portion  of  the  Democratic  party,  of 
which  Cass  and  Douglas  were  the  exponents,  had  heartily 
embraced  the  doctrine  of  manifest  destiny,  which  meant 
that  this  government,  when  it  honorably  could,  should  ac- 
quire territory  by  conquest  and  purchase,  ignoring  the  fact 
whether  it  was  slave  or  free  soil. 

The  Secretary  respectfully  declined  the  proposition  of 
England  and  France.  One  strong  objection  to  the  proposed 
agreement  was,  "  Among  the  oldest  traditions  of  the  federal 
government  is  an  aversion  to  political  alliances  with  Euro- 
pean powers."  This  was  a  policy  counselled  by  Washington 
and  by  Jefferson.  There  is,  moreover,  a  great  difference  be- 
tween the  interest,  in  regard  to  Cuba,  of  France  and  England 
on  the  one  side  and  the  United  States  on  the  other.  "  Cuba 
lies  at  our  doors.  It  commands  the  approach  to  the  Gulf  of 
Mexico,  which  washes  the  shores  of  five  of  our  States.  It 
bars  the  entrance  to  that  great  river  which  drains  half  the 
Korth  American  continent." 

To  understand  our  position,  England  and  France  must 
suppose  an  island  like  Cuba,  a  Spanish  possession,  guarding 
the  entrance  of  the  Thames  or  the  Seine,  and  consider  what, 
in  that  case,  their  answer  would  be  should  we  propose  to 
them  a  similar  tripartite 'convention. 

"  Territorially  and  commercially,  Cuba  would,  in  our 
hands,  be  an  extremely  valuable  possession.  Under  certain 
contingencies,  it  might  be  almost  essential  to  our  safety. 
Still,  for  domestic  reasons  the  President  thinks  that  the  in- 
corporation of  the  island  into  the  Union  at  the  present  time, 
although  effected  with  the  consent  of  Spain,  would  be  a 
hazardous  measure ;  and  he  would  consider  its  acquisition 
by  force,  exce^  t  in  a  just  war  with  Spain  (should  an  event 
so  greatly  to  be  deprecated  take  place),  as  a  disgrace  to  the 
civilization  of  the  age." 

Before  closing,  the  Secretary  went  into  a  history  of  our 
territorial  acquisitions,  defending  them  all,  although  he  limp- 
ed in  attempting  to  justify  the  annexation  of  Texas.  He 
then  vindicated  the  doctrine  of  manifest  destiny  as  applied 


296  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1852 

to  the  past,  calling  it  "  the  undoubted  operation  of  the  law 
of  our  political  existence,"  as  being  a  name  less  harsh  than 
the  other  to  European  ears ;  and  then,  in  a  burst  of  national 
enthusiasm,  he  said :  "  Every  addition  to  the  territory  of  the 
American  Union  has  given  homes  to  European  destitution, 
and  gardens  to  European  want."  * 

The  commendation  of  this  letter  was  general,  and  from 
both  parties.8  Cass  said  in  the  Senate :  "  It  is  marked  by  a 
lofty,  patriotic,  American  feeling.  I  have  seldom  seen  a  doc- 
ument more  conclusive  in  its  argument,  or  more  beautiful  in 
its  style  or  illustrations ;" 8  and  Douglas  testified  that  it  was 
"  applauded  by  the  almost  unanimous  voice  of  the  American 
people." 4 

When  Fillmore,  in  his  last  message,  said  that  he  had  dis- 
charged the  arduous  duties  of  his  high  trust  "  with  a  single 
eye  to  the  public  good,"  he  was  believed  by  everybody  ex- 
cept by  the  abolitionists  and  some  of  the  Seward  Whigs. 
The  slavery  question  and  the  sectional  differences  weighed 
heavily  on  his  mind,  and  he  felt  that  it  was  a  duty  of  his 
high  office  to  attempt  their  adjustment.  He  proposed  in 
his  last  message  to  Congress  a  scheme  of  negro  coloniza- 
tion, and  advocated  its  adoption ;  there,  he  believed,  lay 
the  path  to  the  solution  of  the  difficulties  which  were 
raised  by  slavery  and  the  antagonism  of  race.  This  part  of 
his  message  was  suppressed  by  the  advice  of  his  cabinet ; 
but  even  had  this  not  been  done,  there  is  no  reason  to  sup- 
pose that  the  plan  would  have  been  adopted  by  Congress. 


1  Everett  to  the  Comte  de  Sartiges,  Dec.  1st,  1852,  Senate  Documents, 
2d  Sess.,  32d  Cong.,  Doc.  13. 

*  "  Mr.  Everett's  letter  has  been  received  by  Congress  and  the  country 
as  a  very  able  exposition  of  the  American  sentiment  in  regard  to  Cuba." 
— Harpers  Magazine,  Feb.,  1853.  See  also  New  York  Herald,  Jan.  7th, 
1853. 

'  Jan.  15th,  1853.  The  letter  was  written  Dec.  1st,  1852,  but  was  not 
given  to  Congress  and  the  public  till  Jan.  5th,  1853. 

4  Senate,  March  16th,  1853. 


OB.  Ill]         FILLMORE'S  APPEARANCE  AND  CHARACTER  297 

Yet  in  after-life  it  was  a  satisfaction  to  Fillmore  that  he 
had  thought  out  a  plan  which  might  have  produced  satis- 
factory results.1 

Fillmore  was  a  man  of  imposing  physical  presence;  he 
looked  like  a  ruler,  and  graced  the  White  House.9  He  was 
strictly  temperate,  industrious,  orderly,  and  of  an  integrity 
above  suspicion. 

Besides  the  charge  against  Webster,  already  mentioned,8 
there  were  two  attempts  to  implicate  members  of  the  cab- 
inet in  unworthy  transactions.  One  was  the  affair  of  the  Lo- 
bos  Islands,  in  which  the  Secretary  of  State  was  concerned. 
Webster  had,  indeed,  acted  with  precipitancy  in  this  matter, 
but  there  is  no  evidence  of  corrupt  motive  or  action.4 

The  other  charge  was  against  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 


1  See  Address  of  James  Grant  Wilson  on  Fillmore  before  the  Buffalo 
Historical  Society,  Jan.  7th,  1878.  I  am  indebted  to  Mr.  Barnum,  cor- 
responding secretary  of  that  society,  for  the  portion  of  the  address  which 
referred  to  the  colonization  plan.  General  Wilson  informs  me  that  the 
suppressed  portion  of  the  message  never  appeared  in  print,  but  that  ex- 
President  Fillmore  once  permitted  him  to  peruse  the  proof-slip,  which  at 
the  time  was  submitted  to  the  cabinet.  "Previous  to  his  retirement 
from  office,  some  friends  of  President  Fillmore  contributed  one  thousand 
dollars  to  make  him  a  life  member  of  the  Colonization  Society.  In  his 
letter  of  acknowledgment,  he  took  occasion  to  express  his  decided  ap- 
proval of  the  objects  of  the  society,  and  to  say  that  it  appeared  to  him  to 
have  pointed  out  the  only  rational  mode  of  ameliorating  the  condition 
of  the  colored  race  in  this  country." — Harper's  Magazine,  April,  1853. 

1  "M.  Fillmore  avait  un  cachet  de  simplicite  digne  et  bienveillante,  qui 
me  semble  faire  de  lui  le  type  de  ce  que  doit  6tre  un  president  Ameri- 
cain." — J.  J.  Ampere,  Promenade  en  Ame*rique,  tome  ii.  p.  100. 

•  See  p.  213. 

4  See  Curtis,  vol.  ii.  The  President's  Message,  Dec.  6th,  1852;  Boston 
Courier  and  New  York  Tribune,  Aug.  13th  and  20th ;  New  York  Tribune, 
Nov.  8th.  Per  contra,  see  editorials  in  New  York  Evening  Post,  Nov.  9th 
and  12th ;  for  the  correspondence,  see  Senate  Document  109,  32d  Cong., 
1st  Sess.  The  letter  of  Webster  to  Captain  Jewett,  authorizing  him 
to  take  guano  from  the  Lobos  Islands,  has  written  on  the  last  sheet 
of  the  letter  "  Appd.  June  5th.  M.  F."  See  MSS.  State  department 
archives. 


298  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1851 

ury.  While  a  senator,  Corwin  had  become  attorney  for  Dr. 
Gardiner,  who  had  a  claim  against  Mexico.  It  was  one  of 
those  claims  that,  by  the  treaty  of  1848,  were  to  be  adjudi- 
cated and  paid  by  the  United  States.  Less  than  a  year  after 
being  employed  as  attorney,  Corwin,  in  conjunction  with  his 
brother,  bought  an  interest  in  the  claim  for  which  they  ac- 
tually gave  $22,000.  On  the  accession  of  Fillmore  he  was 
offered  the  Secretaryship  of  the  Treasury,  but  he  would  not 
accept  it  until  he  had  disposed  of  his  interest  in  this  and 
other  claims.  He  therefore  made  in  good  faith  an  uncon- 
ditional transfer  of  his  share.  The  matter  would  probably 
have  never  been  noticed  had  not  the  Gardiner  claim  turned 
out  to  be  "  a  naked  fraud  upon  the  treasury  of  the  United 
States,"1  and  had  not  Corwin  realized  for  his  share  in  the 
transaction  a  handsome  profit.  A  personal  and  political 
enemy  charged  that  the  transfer  of  this  interest  was  a  blind, 
and  the  inference  followed  that  Corwin  had  used  his  influ- 
ence as  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  with  the  board  of  commis- 
sioners, which  had  the  adjustment  of  these  claims,  to  have 
passed  a  fraudulent  claim  in  which  he  was  directly  inter- 
ested. The  matter  attracted  considerable  attention  in  Con- 
gress and  in  the  country.  Committees  of  investigation  were 
appointed  both  by  the  Senate  and  the  House.  The  House 
committee,  a  majority  of  whom  were  Democrats,  reported 
that  there  was  no  evidence  to  show  that  Corwin  knew  that 
the  claim  was  fraudulent ;  they  virtually  said  that  his  trans- 
fer was  unconditional  and  made  in  good  faith.  The  subject 
gave  rise  to  an  animated  debate  in  the  House,  in  which  the 
defenders  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  had  altogether 
the  better  of  the  argument.8  The  reputation  which  Corwin 


1  Report  of  the  House  Committee  of  Investigation. 

9  See  especially  speeches  of  Andrew  Johnson  and  Olds  of  Ohio  at- 
tacking Corwin,  and  those  of  Barrere  of  Ohio,  Chapman  of  Connecti- 
cut, and  A.  H.  Stephens  in  his  defence,  vol.  xxvii.  Congressional  Globe, 
Jan.,  1853;  for  the  report  of  the  House  committee  and  a  large  amount 
of  testimony,  see  Reports  of  Committees,  2d  Sew.  32d  Cong.,  Rep 
No.  1. 


CH.m.]  THOMAS   CORWIN  299 

had  always  borne  as  an  honest  man  was  an  efficient  factor 
towards  causing  the  explanation  of  his  friends  to  be  accept- 
ed as  true,  and  in  making  up  public  sentiment  in  his  favor.1 
Indeed,  in  his  own  home  he  was  not  less  esteemed  for  his 
moral  purity  than  he  was  celebrated  for  his  wit  and  elo- 
quence. 

It  would  have  been  an  ungrateful  task  to  write  down  Cor- 
win  as  having  prostituted  his  high  office  to  the  purpose  of 
private  gain,  for  he  is  one  of  the  representative  men  of  the 
ante-bellum  period.  A  son  of  Western  soil,  his  speeches 
have  a  flavor  of  the  wild  surroundings  of  his  youth.  He 
was  a  born  orator,  exactly  fitted  for  the  rollicking  campaign 
of  1840,  when  he  made  the  reputation  of  being  the  best 
stump-orator  of  Ohio,  and  this  before  audiences  who  were 
wont  to  listen  attentively  to  public  speakers  and  weigh 
carefully  their  merits. 

People  went  to  hear  Corwin  to  be  entertained  as  well  as 
instructed.  His  fine  head,  sparkling  hazel  eyes,  cheery, 
pleasing  manners,  together  with  the  wonderful  facial  ex- 
pression of  an  actor,  set  off  his  abundant  humor,  his  knack 
at  telling  stories,  and  his  skill  at  repartee. 

The  survivors  of  the  generation  who  listened  to  Corwin 
were  never  weary  of  telling  of  his  marvellous  eloquence,  apt 
replies,  and  fitting  anecdotes  ;2  though  it  is  true  that  his  wit 

1  For  a  view  of  the  case,  criticising  Corwin,  see  editorials  in  the  New 
York  Evening  Post,  March  4th  and  6th,  1854.  See  Howells's  Years  of 
My  Youth  (1916),  108. 

*  Corwin's  complexion  was  very  dark.  He  was  on  several  occasions 
supposed  to  be  of  African  descent,  and  he  was  fond  of  relating  these 
ludicrous  mistakes.  One  of  his  keen  retorts  was  made  when  address- 
ing a  Whig  mass-meeting  at  Marietta,  O.  He  had  then  great  anxiety 
not  to  offend  the  abolitionists,  who  were  beginning  to  cast  a  large 
vote.  A  sharp-witted  opponent,  to  draw  him  out,  asked :  "  Shouldn't 
niggers  be  permitted  to  sit  at  the  table  with  white  folks,  on  steamboats 
and  at  hotels?"  "  Fellow  -  citizens,"  exclaimed  Corwin,  his  swarthy 
features-  beaming  with  suppressed  fun,  "  I  ask  you  whether  it  is  proper 
to  ask  such  a  question  of  a  gentleman  of  my  color  ?"  The  crowd  cheered, 
and  the  questioner  was  silenced.  Ben :  Perley  Poore's  Reminiscences,  voL 
i.p.209. 


300  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1852 

sometimes  degenerated  into  coarseness.  He  was  the  best- 
known  man  in  Ohio ;  everybody  called  him  Tom.  A  for- 
mal resolution  of  a  "Whig  State  convention  proclaimed  him 
"  a  man  of  the  people,  and  a  champion  of  their  rights,"  and 
declared,  amid  the  enthusiastic  acclaim  of  the  multitude, "  we 
esteem  him,  and  we  love  him." 

But  Corwin  was  more  than  a  witty  stump-speaker.  He 
was  a  good  lawyer,  who  thought  deeply  on  the  principles 
of  government  and  political  questions.  His  friends  had 
hopes  that  he  might  even  reach  the  presidency;  but  he 
destroyed  his  political  prospects  by  an  indiscreet  though 
brave  speech  in  the  Senate  in  February,  1847,  on  the  Mex- 
ican war.1 

It  was  a  scathing  arraignment  of  the  policy  of  conquest, 
a  severe  invective  against  the  "destiny  doctrine,"  and  a 
fierce  retort  to  the  statement  of  Cass,  "  We  want  room." 
"  If  I  were  a  Mexican,"  said  Corwin,  "  I  would  tell  you, 
'  Have  you  not  room  in  your  own  country  to  bury  your  dead 
men  ?  If  you  come  into  mine,  we  will  greet  you  with  bloody 
hands  and  welcome  you  to  hospitable  graves.' " '  It  is  incon- 
sistent, but  it  is  the  inconsistency  of  a  vigorous  nationality,  to 
condemn  this  utterance  of  Corwin  as  an  unpatriotic  expres- 
sion to  utter  during  a  war  in  which  his  country  was  en- 
gaged, while  we  praise  the  parallel  saying  of  Chatham  dur- 
ing our  Kevolution,  and  print  it  in  every  schoolboy's  book 
of  oratory.' 

Corwin's  position  on  the  compromise  of  1850  was  the 
same  as  that  of  Clay  and  Webster,  and  he  suffered,  as  did 


1  Corwin  "  is  a  truly  kind,  benevolent,  and  gifted  man.    He  seems  to 
forego  all  hope  of  the  presidency,  just  now  at  least." — Seward  to  his  wife, 
from  Washington,  Jan.  23d,  1848,  Life  of  Seward,  F.  W.  Seward,  vol.  r 
p.  62. 

•  See  Corwin's  Speeches ;  also  memoir  prefixed  to  them ;  Public  Men 
and  Events,  Sargent ;  Reminiscences,  Ben :  Perley  Poore. 

"  *'  If  I  were  an  American,  as  I  am  an  Englishman,  while  a  foreign  troop 
was  landed  in  my  country  I  never  would  lay  down  my  arms— never — 
never— never  1" 


CH.IH.]  PRESIDENT  FILLMORE  301 

the  Massachusetts  statesman,  from  the  alienation  of  friends 
who  thought  that  his  opposition  to  slavery  had  weakened. 
"I  did  agree  that  Mr.  Fillmore  should  approve"  the  Fugi- 
tive Slave  law,  he  said  in  1859,  "  though  I  did  not  like  it ;  I 
thought  it  was  constitutional,  and  that  Congress  were  the 
best  judges  of  its  policy." 1 

The  President,  influenced  by  the  attempt  to  bring  home 
the  charge  of  corruption  to  his  administration,  suggested  in 
his  last  message  new  legislation  to  protect  the  government 
against  mischief  and  corruption,  although  he  bore  testimony 
to  the  efficiency  and  integrity  with  which  the  several  exec- 
utive departments  were  conducted. 

In  the  debate  in  Congress  on  the  Gardiner  claim,  few 
found  fault  with  Corwin  for  being,  while  a  senator,  the  at- 
torney of  the  claimant,  since  there  were  many  precedents 
to  justify  such  a  position ;  but  it  was  nevertheless  felt  that 
it  ought  to  be  made  improper  for  a  senator,  a  representa- 
tive, or  any  officer  of  the  United  States  to  act  as  attorney 
for  a  claim  against  the  country,  or  to  be  interested  in  any 
way  in  the  prosecution  of  it.  This  feeling  found  expres- 
sion in  a  law  passed  at  this  session  of  Congress ; 3  the  of- 
fence was  made  a  misdemeanor,  punishable  with  fine  and 
imprisonment. 

When  Fillmore  withdrew  from  the  presidential  office,  the 
general  sentiment  proclaimed  that  he  had  filled  the  place 
with  ability  and  honor.3  The  country  abounded  with  pros- 
perity ;  the  administration  was  identified  with  the  compro- 
mise, and  the  compromise  had  now  become  very  popular. 
If  Northern  people  did  not  approve  the  Fugitive  Slave  law, 
they  at  least  looked  upon  it  with  toleration.  It  is  quite 
true,  however,  that  after-opinion  has  been  unkind  to  Fill- 


1  House  of  Representatives,  Dec.  8th,  1859. 
9  Approved  Feb.  26th,  1853. 


3  Public  Men  and  Events,  Sargent,  vol.  ii.  p.  394.  "  There  was  at  that 
time  but  one  voice  heard  from  one  end  of  the  country  to  the  ot'her — that 
of  <  Well  done,  good  and  faithful  servant.' " 


302  FILLMORE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1855 

more.  The  judgment  on  him  was  made  up  at  a  time  when 
the  Fugitive  Slave  law  had  become  detestable,  and  he  was 
remembered  only  for  his  signature  and  vigorous  execution 
of  it.  After  Johnson  had  been  President,  it  was  asserted, 
with  the  taste  for  generalization  that  obtains  in  politics, 
that  all  of  our  Yice-Presidents  who  succeeded  to  the  presi- 
dential office  turned  out  badly.  This  was  maintained  until 
the  wise  administration  of  President  Arthur  became  con- 
fessedly an  exception  to  the  rule ;  yet  the  plaudits  for  Ar- 
thur were  not  more  general  than  were  those  for  Fillmore  at 
the  close  of  his  administration.  Fillmore  retained  as  strong 
a  hold  on  his  party  as  did  the  other ;  both  were  candidates 
for  renomination,  and  showed  great  strength  in  their  party 
conventions. 

In  a  just  estimate,  therefore,  of  our  Yice-Presidents  who 
have  become  Presidents,  we  should  class  Fillmore  with  Ar- 
thur, and  not  with  Tyler  and  Johnson. 


CHAPTER  IV 

IT  will  be  well,  at  this  point  of  my  narrative,  to  examine  • 
the  institution  of  negro  slavery  as  it  existed  in  the  South. 
So  forcibly  has  the  word  slavery  come  in  the  closing  years 
of  our  century  to  signify  a  practice  utterly  abhorrent,  that 
we  find  it  difficult  to  realize  how  recently  it  was  defended 
and  even  extolled.  It  is  my  wish  to  describe  the  institution 
as  it  may  have  appeared  before  the  war  to  a  fair-minded 
man.  In  such  an  inquiry  it  is  quite  easy  for  one  of  Northern 
birth  and  breeding  to  extenuate  nothing ;  more  care  must  be 
taken  to  set  down  naught  in  malice.  Nevertheless,  this  chap- 
ter can  only  be  a  commentary  on  the  sententious  expres- 
sion of  Clay:  "  Slavery  is  a  curse  to  the  master  and  a  wrong 
to  the  slave." 

It  was  the  cultivation  of  the  semi-tropical  products,  cot- 
ton, sugar,  and  rice,  that  strengthened  the  hold  of  slavery  on 
the  South.  No  one  was  able  to  contend,  with  any  success, 
that  grain  and  tobacco  could  be  as  well  cultivated  by  slave 
as  by  free  labor.  After  a  very  careful  investigation  into 
the  agricultural  system  of  Virginia,  Olmsted,  who  worked 
a  farm  in  New  York,  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  one  hand 
in  New  York  did  as  much  labor  as  two  slave  hands  in  Vir- 
ginia.1 Yet  taking  as  a  basis  the  price  paid  for  slaves  when 


1  Cotton  Kingdom,  Frederick  Law  Olmsted,  vol.  i.  p.  134.  This  was  a 
low  estimate.  A  New  Jersey  farmer,  who  had  the  superintendence  of 
very  large  agricultural  operations  in  Virginia,  conducted  with  slave  labor, 
thought  four  Virginia  slaves  did  not  accomplish  as  much  as  one  ordinary 
free  farm  laborer  in  New  Jersey.  This  statement  was  confirmed  by  sev- 
eral who  had  a  similar  experience.  I  shall  have  frequent  occasion  to 


804  SLAVERY  [On.  IV. 

•  they  were  hired  out — a  common  custom  in  Eastern  Virginia 
— he  was  well  satisfied  that  the  wages  for  common  laborers 
were  twenty-five  per  cent,  higher  in  Virginia  than  in  New 
York.1  What  was  true  of  Virginia  was  substantially  true 
of  the  other  border  slave  States.  It  should  have  been  clear 
that,  in  the  portion  of  the  South  where  the  climate  was  un- 
suitable for  cotton-raising,  slavery  was  an  economical  failure ; 
and  before  the  war,  as  at  present,  this  conclusion  necessarily 
followed  the  inquiries  of  an  impartial  observer.  If  there 
had  been  any  justification  for  slavery  it  must  have  been 
found  in  the  cotton,  rice,  and  sugar  regions. 


refer  to  Olmsted's  books,  The  Seaboard  Slave  States,  Texas  Journey, 
A  Journey  in  the  Back  Country,  and  The  Cotton  Kingdom,  the  last  based 
on  the  three  others.  This  gentleman  made  several  journeys  through 
the  slave  States  between  1850  and  1857,  travelling  over  a  large  part  of 
country  on  horseback,  which  gave  him  unusual  facilities  for  seeing  the 
life  of  the  people.  His  aim  was  to  see  things  as  they  were  and  describe 
them  truthfully.  He  has  admirably  succeeded,  and  his  books  are  in- 
valuable to  one  making  a  study  of  this  subject. 

In  reviewing  A  Journey  in  the  Back  Country,  James  R.  Lowell  wrote 
in  the  Atlantic  Monthly  for  Nov.,  1860 :  "  No  more  important  contribu- 
tions to  contemporary  American  history  have  been  made  than  in  this 
volume  and  the  two  that  preceded  it.  We  know  of  no  book  that  offers 
a  parallel  to  them  except  Arthur  Young's  Travels  in  France.  To  discuss 
the  question  of  slavery  without  passion  or  even  sentiment  seemed  an 
impossibility ;  yet  Mr.  Olmsted  has  shown  that  it  can  be  done,  and,  hav- 
ing no  theory  to  bolster,  has  contrived  to  tell  us  what  he  saw,  and  not 
what  he  went  to  see— the  rarest  achievement  among  travellers."  This 
was  a  happy  comparison  of  the  reviewer,  for  there  was  a  great  resem- 
blance between  Young  and  Olmsted  in  tastes,  manner  of  observing,  and 
impartiality  of  judgment.  But  the  most  important  resemblance  Lowell 
could  not  know  in  1860.  Both  wrote  on  the  eve  of  a  great  convulsion. 
One  was  the  greatest  historical  event  of  the  eighteenth  century,  and  the 
other  will  probably  be  adjudged  the  greatest  of  the  nineteenth  century. 

George  Win.  Curtis,  in  the  Atlantic  Monthly  for  Aug.,  1863,  makes  the 
statement  that  first  of  all  the  literature  on  the  subject  of  slavery  are,  "in 
spirit  and  comprehension,  the  masterly,  careful,  copious,  and  patient  works 
of  Mr.  Olmsted."  The  epithet  of  "  that  wise  and  honest  traveller,"  which 
John  Morley  applied  to  Young,  may  likewise  be  said  of  Olmsted. 

1  Cotton  Kingdom,  vol.  i.  p.  118. 


CalV.]  COST  OF  KEEPING  SLAVES  305 

"What  was  there  in  mitigation  of  the  wrong  done  the 
slave  ?  It  used  to  be  said  that  the  slaves  were  better  fed, 
better  clothed,  and  better  lodged  than  laborers  in  the  cities 
and  manufacturing  districts  at  the  North.  Yet  no  state- 
ment more  completely  false  was  ever  made.  A  report  to 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  from  forty-six  sugar-planters 
of  Louisiana  stated  that  the  cost  of  feeding  and  clothing  an 
able-bodied  slave  was  thirty  dollars  per  year.  Olmsted 
estimates  that  the  clothing  would  amount  to  ten  dollars, 
which  would  leave  twenty  dollars  for  the  food,  or  five  and 
one  half  cents  per  day.1  "  Does  the  food  of  a  first-rate  la- 
borer," he  asks,  "  anywhere  in  the  free  world  cost  less  ?" 
This  was  a  fair  example  of  the  cost  of  supporting  the  negroes 
on  the  large  sugar  and  cotton  plantations  of  the  Southwest. 
Corn-meal  was  the  invariable  article  of  food  furnished  the 
slaves ;  bacon  and  molasses  were  regularly  provided  on  some 
plantations,  while  on  others  they  were  only  occasional  lux- 
uries. Fanny  Kemble,  the  accomplished  actress,  who  spent 
a  winter  on  her  husband's  rice  and  cotton  plantations  in 
Georgia,  says  that  animal  food  was  only  given  to  men  who 
were  engaged  in  the  hardest  kind  of  work,  such  as  ditching, 
and  to  them  it  was  given  only  occasionally  and  in  moderate 
quantities.  Her  description  of  the  little  negroes  begging  her 
piteously  for  meat  is  as  pathetic  as  the  incident  of  the  hungry 
demand  of  Oliver  Twist.'  This  rude  fare  was  generally  given 
the  slave  in  sufficient  quantity;  the  instances  are  rare  in  which 
one  finds  the  negroes  did  not  have  enough  to  eat.  Freder- 
ick Douglass,  however,  tells  us  that,  when  a  child,  although 
belonging  to  a  wealthy  and  large  landed  proprietor  of  Mary- 
land, he  was  often  pinched  with  hunger,  and  used  to  dispute 


1  Cotton  Kingdom,  vol.  ii.  p.  238. 

'  Journal  of  a  Residence  on  a  Georgian  Plantation  in  1838-39,  Frances 
Anne  Kemble,  p.  134 ;  see  also  p.  65.  This  was  not  published  until  1863. 
In  the  Atlantic  Monthly  for  August,  1863,  George  Wm.  Curtis  says:  "  This 
book  is  a  permanent  and  most  valuable  chapter  in  our  history ;  for  it  is 
the  first  ample,  lucid,  faithful,  detailed  account  from  the  actual  head- 
quarters of  a  slave  plantation  in  this  country," 
L— 20 


306  COST  OF  KEEPING  SLAVES  [CH.IV. 

with  the  dogs  the  crumbs  which  fell  from  the  kitchen  table.1 
In  comparison  with  slaves  who  had  plenty,  the  prison  con- 
victs of  the  North  were  given  food  in  greater  variety  and 
not  so  coarse.*  "  Ninety-nine  in  a  hundred  of  our  free  labor- 
ers," wrote  Olmsted,  "  from  choice  and  not  from  necessity, 
live,  in  respect  to  food,  at  least  four  times  as  well  as  the 
average  of  the  hardest- worked  slaves  on  the  Louisiana  sug- 
ar plantations."3  The  negroes  on  the  large  cotton  planta- 
tions of  the  Southwest  fared  no  better.  A  Louisiana  cotton- 
planter  furnished  De  Bow  an  itemized  estimate  of  the  cost  of 
raising  cotton,  in  which  the  expense  of  feeding  one  hundred 
slaves,  furnishing  the  hospital,  overseer's  table,  etc.,  was  put 
down  at  $750  for  the  year.  This  was  $7.50  for  each  one,  or, 
in  other  words,  the  cost  of  food  for  the  slave  was  less  than 
2^  cents  per  day.4  The  overseers  everywhere  endeavored 
to  bring  the  keeping  of  the  slaves  down  to  the  lowest  pos- 
sible figure.  This  was  a  large  item  in  the  cost  of  cotton 
production ;  and  on  the  large  plantations,  where  in  some 
cases  as  many  as  five  hundred  slaves  were  worked,  economy 
in  feeding  these  human  cattle  was  studied  with  almost  sci- 
entific precision.  The  supply  of  food  to  the  slaves  was 
made  a  subject  of  legislation.  Louisiana  required  that  meat 
should  be  furnished,  but  this,  law  became  a  dead  letter. 
North  Carolina  fixed  the  daily  allowance  of  corn;  in  the 
other  States  the  law  was  not  specific,  but  directed  in  gen- 
eral terms  that  the  provisions  should  be  sufficient  for  the 
health  of  the  slave. 

It  was  in  the  line  of  plantation  parsimony  that  the  clothes 
furnished  the  field  hands  should  be  of  the  cheapest  material 
and  as  scant  as  was  consistent  with  a  slight  regard  for  de- 


1  Life  of  Frederick  Douglass,  by  himself,  p.  22;  see  also  pp.  45,  61, 
108. 

5  Cotton  Kingdom,  vol.  ii.  p.  241. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  239 ;  Despotism  in  America,  Hildreth,  pp.  58, 60 ;  Slave  States 
of  America,  Buckingham,  vol.  i.  pp.  87,  134. 

*  De  Bow's  Resources  of  the  South  and  West,  vol.  i.  p.  150. 


CH.  IV.]  OVERSEERS  307 

cency  and  health.  All  observers  agree  that  the  slaves  who 
labored  -on  the  cotton  and  sugar  plantations  presented  a 
ragged,  unkempt,  and  dirty  appearance.1 

Comfortable  houses  were  in  many  places  built  for  the 
negroes;2  but,  owing  to  their  indolent  and  filthy  habits, 
which  were  aggravated  by  their  condition  of  servitude,  neat- 
ness and  the  appearance  of  comfort  soon  disappeared  from 
their  quarters.  The  testimony  is  almost  universal  that  the 
negro  cabins  were  foul  and  wretched.8 

In  the  cotton,  sugar,  arid  rice  districts  the  negroes  were 
hard  worked.  The  legal  limit  of  a  day's  work  in  South 
Carolina  was  fifteen  hours ;  on  cotton  plantations,  during 
the  picking  season,  the  slaves  labored  sixteen  hours,  while 
on  sugar  plantations  at  grinding  time  eighteen  hours'  work 
was  exacted.4  Many  of  the  large  owners  of  land  and  of 
negroes  in  the  Southwest  were  absentees,  whose  authority 
was  delegated  to  their  overseers.  Indeed,  in  all  cases  where 
the  agricultural  operations  were  on  a  large  scale,  the  over- 
seer was  the  power.  Patrick  Henry  described  the  overseers 
as  "the  most  abject,  degraded,  unprincipled  race."6  Years 
had  not  improved  them,  and  on  the  lonely  plantations  of 
the  Southwest  they  were  hardly  amenable  to  public  opinion 
or  subject  to  the  law's  control.  They  were  generally  igno- 


1  The  Louisiana  cotton-planter  before  referred  to  said  the  cost  of  cloth- 
ing one  hundred  slaves,  shoeing  them,  furnishing  bedding,  sacks  for 
gathering  cotton,  etc.,  was  $750  per  annum. 

5  Cotton  Kingdom,  vol.  i.  p.  320. 

3  I  quote  observations  of  Frances  Kemble  on  several  Georgia  planta- 
tions.    "  I  found  there  [at  St.  Annie's]  the  wretch edest  huts,  and  most 
miserably  squalid,  filthy,  and  forlorn  creatures  I  had  yet  seen  here,"  p. 
187.     %<The  negro  huts  on  several  of  the  plantations  that  we  passed 
through  were  the  most  miserable  human  habitations  I  ever  beheld,"  p. 
242.     "Miserable  negro  huts"  which  "were  not  fit  to  shelter  cattle,"  p. 
248.     See  also  Slave  States  of  America,  Buckingham,  vol.  i.  p.  134. 

4  Cotton  Kingdom,  vol.  i.  p.  328 ;  vol.  ii.  p.  180. 

*  Life  of  Patrick  Henry,  Wirt,  cited  in  Stroud's  Slave  Laws,  p.  74 ;  see 
also  Mrs.  Davis's  remarks  on  overseers,  Memoir  of  Jefferson  Davis,  voL 
i.  p.  477. 


308  THE  NEGRO  AS  PROPERTY  [€H.  IV. 

rant,  frequently  intemperate,  always  despotic  and  brutaL 
Their  value  was  rated  according  to  the  bigness  of  the  cotton 
crop  they  made,  and,  with  that  end  in  view,  they  spared  not 
the  slave.  The  slaves  always  worked  under  the  lash.  "  It 
is  true,"  said  Chancellor  Harper,  in  his  defence  of  slavery, 
"  that  the  slave  is  driven  to  labor  by  stripes."  1  With  each 
gang  went  a  stout  negro  driver  whose  qualification  for  the 
position  depended  upon  his  unusual  cruelty;  he  followed  the 
working  slaves,  urging  them  in  their  task  by  a  loud  voice 
and  the  cracking  of  his  long  whip.  That  the  negroes  were 
overtasked  to  the  extent  of  being  often  permanently  in- 
jured, was  evident  from  the  complaints  made  by  the  South- 
ern agricultural  journals  against  the  bad  policy  of  thus  wast- 
ing human  property.  An  Alabama  tradesman  told  Olmsted 
that  if  the  overseers  make  "  plenty  of  cotton,  the  owners 
never  ask  how  many  niggers  they  kill ;" 2  and  he  gave  the 
further  information  that  a  determined  and  perfectly  relent- 
less overseer  could  get  almost  any  wages  he  demanded,  for 
when  it  became  known  that  such  a  man  had  made  so  many 
bales  to  the  hand,  everybody  would  try  to  get  him.3 

In  the  rich  cotton-planting  districts  the  negro  was  univer- 
sally regarded  as  property.  When  the  newspapers  men- 
tioned the  sudden  death  of  one  of  them,  it  was  the  loss  of 
money  that  was  bewailed,  and  not  of  the  light  which  no 
Promethean  heat  can  relume.  Olmsted  found  that  "  negro 
life  and  negro  vigor  were  generally  much  less  carefully 
economized  than  I  had  always  before  imagined  them  to 
be."4  Louisiana  sugar-planters  did  not  hesitate  to  avow 
openly  that,  on  the  whole,  they  found  it  the  best  economy 
to  work  off  their  stock  of  negroes  about  once  in  seven 
years,  and  then  buy  an  entire  set  of  new  hands.6  An  over- 


1  Pro-slavery  Argument,  p.  34. 

'  The  same  man,  however,  expressed  the  opinion  that  "  niggers  is  gen- 
erally pretty  well  treated,  considerin'."     Cotton  Kingdom,  vol.  ii.  p.  184. 
•Ibid.,  p.  186.  *  Ibid.,  p.  191. 

*  Frances  Kemble's  Journal,  p.  28 ;  Society  in  America,  H.  Martiueau, 


CH.IV.]  THE  NEGRO  AS  PROPERTY  309 

seer  once  said  to  Olmsted  :  "  Why,  sir,  I  wouldn't  mind  kill- 
ing a  nigger  more  than  I  would  a  dog." 1  The  restraint  of 
the  law  did  not  operate  powerfully  to  prevent  the  killing  of 
these  unfortunates.  While  the  wilful,  malicious,  and  pre- 
meditated murder  of  a  slave  was  a  capital  offence  in  all  the 
slave-holding  States,  it  was  provided  in  most  of  them  that 
any  person  killing  a  slave  in  the  act  of  resistance  to  his 
lawful  owner  was  guilty  of  no  offence,  nor  was  there 
ground  for  an  indictment  in  the  case  where  a  slave  died 
while  receiving  moderate  correction.2  But  what  protected 
the  overseers  on  plantations  remote  from  settlements  and 
neighbors  was  the  universal  rule  of  slave  law,  that  the  testi- 
mony of  a  colored  person  could  not  be  received  against  a 
white.3  This  gave  complete  immunity  to  the  despotic  over- 
seer. On  but  few  plantations  were  there  more  than  two 
white  men,  and  they  were  always  interested  parties,  being 
owner,  manager,  or  overseer.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  only  re- 
fractory slaves,  or  negroes  attempting  to  run  away,  were 
killed,  and  these  murders  were  not  frequent.  Except  in 
rare  instances  the  slaves  had  no  incentive  to  work,  save  the 
fear  of  a  whipping.4  "  If  you  don't  work  faster,"  or  "  if  you 
don't  work  better,  I  will  have  you  flogged,"  were  words 
often  heard.6  No  one  can  wonder  that  it  was  a  painful 
sight  to  see  negroes  at  work.  The  besotted  and  generally 
repulsive  expression  of  the  field  hands;  their  brute-like 
countenances,  on  which  were  painted  stupidity,  indolence, 
duplicity,  and  sensuality;  their  listlessness ;  their  dogged 
action  ;  the  stupid,  plodding,  machine-like  manner  in  which 
they  labored,  made  a  sorrowful  picture  of  man's  inhumanity 


vol.  i.  p.  308 ;  Weld's  Slavery  as  It  Is,  cited  in  Key  to  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin, 
p.  41. 

1  Cotton  Kingdom,  vol.  ii.  p.  203.  See  account  of  the  murder  of  a  slave 
in  Life  of  Frederick  Douglass,  p.  57. 

3  Stroud's  Slave  Laws,  pp.  56  and  61.  3  Ibid.,  p.  41. 

*  Life  of  Frederick  Douglass,  by  himself,  p.  117. 

•  Cotton  Kingdom,  vol.  ii.  p.  203. 


310  WOMEN  UNDER  SLAVERY  [On.  IV. 

to  man.  General  Sherman,  who  was  for  a  time  stationed 
at  New  Orleans  and  later  lived  more  than  a  year  in  Louisi- 
ana, states  that  the  field  slaves  were  treated  like  animals.2 
Fanny  Kemble  noticed  that  those  who  had  some  intelli- 
gence, who  were  beyond  the  brutish  level,  wore  a  pathetic 
expression  —  a  mixture  of  sadness  and  fear.3  Frederick 
Douglass,  himself  a  slave  and  the  only  negro  in  his  neigh- 
borhood who  could  read,  relates  the  effect  of  unceasing  and 
habitual  toil  on  one  in  whom  there  was  a  gleam  of  knowl- 
edge :  "  My  natural  elasticity  was  crushed ;  my  intellect 
languished ;  the  disposition  to  read  departed ;  the  cheerful 
spark  that  lingered  about  my  eye  died  out ;  the  dark  night 
of  slavery  closed  in  upon  me,  and  behold  a  man  transformed 
to  a  brute."4  An  observer  who  visited  an  average  rice 
plantation  near  Savannah  was  impressed  with  the  fate  of 
the  field  hands  :  "  Their  lot  was  one  of  continued  toil  from 
morning  to  night,  uncheered  even  by  the  hope  of  any 
change  or  prospect  of  improvement  in  condition." 5  Harriet 
Martineau  wrote  :  "  A  walk  through  a  lunatic  asylum  is  far 
less  painful  than  a  visit  to  the  slave  quarter  of  an  estate." ' 
This  state  of  affairs  is  perfectly  comprehensible ;  it  was  an 
accessory  of  the  system.  It  was  Olmsted's  judgment  that  a 
certain  degree  of  cruelty  was  necessary  to  make  slave  labor 
generally  profitable.7 

The  institution  bore  harder  on  the  women  than  on  the 
men.  Slave-breeding  formed  an  important  part  of  planta- 
tion economy,  being  encouraged  as  was  the  breeding  of  ani- 
mals. "  Their  lives  are,  for  the  most  part,  those  of  mere 
animals ;"  wrote  Fanny  Kemble,  "  their  increase  is  literally 
mere  animal  breeding,  to  which  every  encouragement  is 


1  See  Cotton  Kingdom,  vol.  i.  pp.  142,  245 ;  vol.  ii.  p.  202. 
8  North  American  Review,  Oct.,  1888. 
8  Frances  Kemble's  Journal,  p.  98. 
4  Life  of  Frederick  Douglass,  p.  119. 

6  Slave  States  of  America,  Buckingham,  vol.  i.  p.  133. 
•  Society  in  America,  vol.  i.  p.  224. 

7  Cotton  Kingdom,  vol.  i.  p.  354. 


CH.IV.]  COTTON  AND  SLAVERY  311 

given,  for  it  adds  to  the  master's  live-stock  and  the  value  of 
his  estate." '  The  women  worked  in  the  fields  as  did  the 
men.  When  it  became  known  that  they  were  pregnant, 
their  task  was  lightened,  yet,  if  necessary,  they  were 
whipped  when  with  child,  and,  in  some  cases,  were  put  to 
work  again  as  early  as  three  weeks  after  their  confinement, 
although  generally  the  time  of  rest  allowed  was  one  month. 
Fanny  Kemble's  woman  heart  bled  at  the  tales  of  suffering 
she  heard,  of  the  rapid  child-bearing,  the  gross  disregard  of 
nature's  laws  of  maternity,  and  the  consequent  wide  preva- 
lence of  diseases  peculiar  to  the  sex;  her  daily  record  of 
what  she  saw  and  heard  is  as  pitiful  as  it  is  true.3 

The  money  return  for  this  degradation  of  humankind 
came  mainly  from  the  growth  of  cotton.  Of  the  3,177,000 
slaves  in  1850,  De  Bow  estimated  that  1,800,000  were  en- 
gaged in  the  cotton  -  culture.3  The  value  of  this  crop 
amounted  to  much  more  than  that  of  the  combined  produc- 
tion of  sugar  and  rice.4  Cotton  was  then,  as  now,  not  only 
the  most  important  article  of  commerce  of  the  South,  but 
was  by  far  the  greatest  export  from  the  whole  country.5 
It  formed  the  basis  of  the  material  prosperity  of  the  South, 


1  Frances  Kemble's  Journal,  p.  122.  "  A  woman  thinks  .  .  .  that  the 
more  frequently  she  adds  to  the  number  of  her  master's  live-stock  by 
bringing  new  slaves  into  the  world,  the  more  claims  she  will  have  upon 
his  consideration  and  good-will.  This  was  perfectly  evident  to  me  from 
the  meritorious  air  with  which  the  women  always  made  haste  to  inform 
me  of  the  number  of  children  they  had  borne,  and  the  frequent  occasions 
on  which  the  older  slaves  would  direct  my  attention  to  their  children, 
exclaiming,  '  Look,  missis !  little  niggers  for  you  and  massa ;  plenty  little 
niggers  for  you  and  little  missis !'  "—Frances  Kemble's  Journal,  p.  60. 

1  See  Frances  Kemble's  Journal,  pp.  60,  200, 251. 

8  De  Bow's  Resources  of  the  South  and  West,  vol.  iii.  p.  419 ;  Cotton 
Kingdom,  vol.i.  p.  17. 

*  Value  of  crops  in  1850:  cotton,  $105,600,000;  sugar,  $12,396,150; 
rice,  $3,000,000.  De  Bow's  Resources,  vol.  iii.  p.  40. 

5  The  total  domestic  exports  for  the  year  ending  June  30th,  1850,  were 
$136,946,912,  of  which  cotton  furnished  $71,984,616,  and  bread-stuffs  and 
provisions,  $26,051,373.  De  Bow's  Resources,  vol.  iii.  pp.  388, 391, 392. 


312  COTTON  AND  SLAVERY  [On.  IV. 

and  there  was  economic  foundation  for  the  statement,  so 
arrogantly  made,  that  "  Cotton  is  king." 

The  profits  of  cotton-growing  in  a  new  country  were  very 
large.  Harriet  Martineau,  who  visited  Alabama  in  1835, 
was  told  that  the  profits  were  thirty -five  per  cent.  One 
planter  whom  she  knew  had  two  years  previously  invested 
$15,000  in  land,  which  he  could  then  sell  for  $65,000 ;  but 
he  expected  at  this  time  to  make  fifty  or  sixty  thousand  dol- 
lars out  of  his  growing  crop.1  Land  was  so  plenty  that  no 
one  took  any  pains  to  prevent  its  exhaustion,  and  when  a 
good  yield  of  cotton  could  no  longer  be  had,  the  land  was 
abandoned,  and  more  virgin  soil  was  purchased.  When 
Olmsted  visited  the  South,  Mississippi  and  Louisiana  were 
the  States  which  offered  the  largest  returns.  He  visited 
one  Mississippi  plantation  where  five  hundred  negroes  were 
worked,  the  profit  in  a  single  year  being  $100,000.a  The 
rich  country  tributary  to  Natchez,  as  well  as  that  along  the 
Yazoo  River,  was  all  owned  by  large  proprietors,  none  of 
whom  were  worth  less  than  $100,000,  and  the  property  of 
some  was  popularly  estimated  by  millions.  The  ignorant 
newly-rich  seemed  to  be  as  large  an  element  of  society  in 
Mississippi  as  they  were  in  New  York.3  A  Southern  law- 
yer truly  describes  a  phase  of  the  cotton  industry.  Wealth 
was  rapidly  acquired  by  planters  who  began  with  limited 
means,  and  whose  success  was  due  to  their  industry,  econ- 
omy, and  self-denial.  They  devoted  most  of  their  profits 
to  the  increase  of  their  capital,  with  the  result  that  in  a  few 
years,  as  if  by  magic,  large  estates  were  accumulated.  "  The 
fortunate  proprietors  then  build  fine  houses,  and  surround 
themselves  with  comforts  and  luxuries  to  which  they  were 
strangers  in  their  earlier  years  of  care  and  toil."4 

An  unwise  and  wasteful  conduct  of  the  business,  however, 


1  Society  in  America,  vol.  i.  p.  228. 

•  Cotton  Kingdom,  vol.  ii.  p.  83.  '  Ibid.,  pp.  158, 159. 

*  Letter  to  Harper's  Weekly,  Feb.,  1859   emoted  in  Cotton  Kingdom, 
ToLii.  p.  158. 


CH.  IV.]  COTTON  AND  SLAVERY  313 

accompanied  this  prosperity.  The  profits  were  laid  out  in 
more  land  and  negroes ;  the  prospect  of  enlarged  gains  and 
greater  social  consideration  were  alike  incentives  to  increase 
these  holdings.  Frequently  the  coming  crop  was  mortgaged 
for  money  at  high  rates  of  interest,  and  the  plantation  sup- 
plies were  furnished  by  factors  at  extravagant  prices.  No  sys- 
tem could  be  more  ruinous  ;  yet  the  demand  for  the  world's 
great  staple  continued  to  be  so  active,  and  the  profit  of  rais- 
ing cotton  so  enormous,  that  the  cotton  regions  of  the  South- 
west were,  in  the  decade  before  the  war,  very  prosperous. 
This  prosperity  was  the  boast  of  the  Southerner,  and  the 
notion  widely  prevailed  that  in  material  well-being  the  South 
went  ahead  of  the  North.1  The  acme  of  this  idea  was  at- 
tained when  Senator  Hammond  taunted  the  North  with  the 
results  of  the  financial  panic  of  1857.  "  When  the  abuse  of 
credit,"  said  he,  "  had  destroyed  credit  and  annihilated  con- 
fidence ;  when  thousands  of  the  strongest  commercial  houses 
in  the  world  were  coming  down,  and  hundreds  of  millions  of 
dollars  of  supposed  property  evaporating  in  thin  air ;  when 
you  came  to  a  dead-lock,  and  revolutions  were  threatened, 
what  brought  you  up?  Fortunately  for  you,  it  was  the 
commencement  of  the  cotton  season,  and  we  have  poured 
upon  you  one  million  six  hundred  thousand  bales  of  cotton 
just  at  the  crisis  to  save  you  from  destruction." 8  Every  one 
knows  that  those  were  bragging  words ;  nevertheless,  the 
prosperity  of  the  cotton  States  was  real.  Nowhere  else  ex- 
isted such  a  union  of  soil  and  climate  adapted  to  the  growth 


1  See  various  articles  in  De  Bow's  Resources;  De  Bow's  Review;  South- 
ern Wealth  and  Northern  Profits,  by  T.  P.  Kettell,  New  York,  1861 ;  also 
speech  of  Hammond,  of  South  Carolina,  in  the  United  States  Senate, 
March  4th,  1858.  But  in  1890  the  leading  senator  of  South  Carolina 
saw  the  matter  in  a  different  light.  "  I  assert,  what  I  believe  is  not  de- 
nied, that  the  institution  of  slavery  retarded  and  hindered  the  material 
development  of  those  States  where  it  existed ;  certainly  so  as  compared 
with  their  sister  free  States."— Butler,  in  the  Senate,  Jan.  16th,  1890. 

*  In  the  Senate,  March  4th,  1858,  Speeches  and  Letters  of  J.  H.  Ham- 
mond, p.  317. 


314  COTTON  AND  SLAVERY  [Cn.  IV. 

of  the  staple,  which  was  always  in  brisk  and  increasing  de- 
mand. The  Southerners  maintained  that  their  wealth  was 
due  to  their  peculiar  institution ;  that  without  slavery  there 
could  not  be  a  liberal  cotton  supply.1  This  assertion  has 
been  effectually  disproved  by  the  results  since  emancipation, 
while  even  in  the  decade  before  the  war  it  could  with  good 
and  sufficient  reason  be  questioned.  It  was  apparent  to  the 
economist  that  the  rich  gifts  of  nature,  the  concentration  of 
capital  and  the  combination  of  laborers  accounted  for  the 
fruitful  returns  of  cotton-planting.  It  was  patent  that  with 
free  white  labor  better  results  could  be  obtained.8  It  is 
quite  true,  however,  that  the  practical  question  did  not  lie 
between  slave  labor  and  free  white  labor,  but  between  the 
negro  bondman  and  the  negro  freeman.  Northern  and  Eng- 
lish observers,  for  the  most  part,  staggered  when  confronted 
with  the  horns  of  the  dilemma ;  yet  they  certainly  amassed 
sufficient  facts  to  venture  the  assertion  that  if  the  slaves  were 
freed,  cotton-planting  would  be  as  remunerative  to  the  mas- 
ter as  before,  and  that  the  physical  condition  of  the  laborer 
would  be  improved.  The  demand  for  cotton  and  negroes 
went  hand  in  hand ;  a  high  price  of  the  staple  made  a  high 
value  for  the  human  cattle.  A  traveller  going  through  the 
South  would  hear  hardly  more  than  two  subjects  dis- 
cussed in  public  places — the  price  of  cotton  and  the  price  of 
slaves.3 
This  kind  of  property  was  very  high  in  the  decade  before 


1  "  The  first  and  most  obvious  effect  [of  abolition  of  slavery]  would  be 
to  put  an  end  to  the  cultivation  of  our  great  Southern  staple.1' — Chancel- 
lor Harper,  Pro-slaver}'  Argument,  1852,  p.  86.  "  The  average  annual  yield 
[of  cotton]  during  the  twenty  years  previous  to  1861  was  1,335,000,000 
pounds;  during  the  twenty-three  years  from  1865  to  1886  it  was  2,207,- 
000,000  pounds,  an  increase  of  65.3  per  cent."— The  United  States,  Whit- 
ney, p.  383.  The  crop  of  1850  was  2,233,718  bales,  value  $105,600,000. 
The  crop  of  1880  was  5,757,397  bales,  value  $275,000,000. 

*  This  subject  is  thoroughly  discussed  in  A  Journey  in  the  Back  Coun- 
try, Olmsted,  p.  296,  and  in  his  Texas  Journey,  p.  xiii.  See  also  Cotton 
Kingdom,  vol.  ii.  p.  202.  J  See  Cotton  Kingdom,  vol.  i.  p.  51. 


CH.  IV.]  THE  VALUE  OF  SLAVES  31$ 

the  war,  a  good  field  hand  being  worth  from  one  thousand 
to  fifteen  hundred  dollars.  Since  the  adoption  of  the  Con- 
stitution the  price  of  slaves  had  increased  manifold,  and 
after  1835  the  advance  was  especially  marked.1  The  need 
of  slaves  in  the  cotton  region  kept  slavery  alive  in  the  bor- 
der States ;  for  the  Southwest  was  a  ready  purchaser  of  ne- 
groes, and  Maryland,  Virginia,  and  Kentucky,  States  which 
could  employ  slave  labor  to  little  advantage,  always  had  a 
surplus  for  sale.  The  salubrious  climate  of  these  States  pro- 
duced a  hardy  laborer  who  was  in  great  request  in  the  cot- 
ton and  sugar  districts.  The  negroes  of  Virginia  and  Ken- 
tucky considered  it  a  cruel  doom  to  be  sold  to  go  South,  as  it 
was  well  understood  that  harder  work  and  poorer  fare  would 
be  their  lot.  The  annual  waste  of  life  on  the  sugar  planta- 
tions of  Louisiana  was  two  and  one-half  per  cent,  over  and 
above  the  natural  increase.2  On  the  cotton  estates  the  in- 
crease, if  any,  was  slight.  On  one  of  the  best-managed 
estates  in  Mississippi,  Olmsted  learned  that  the  net  increase 
amounted  to  four  per  cent. ;  on  Virginia  farms,  however,  it 
was  frequently  twenty  per  cent.  Nevertheless,  between  1830 
and  1850  the  slave  population  of  Maryland  decreased  and  that 
of  Virginia  remained  stationary,  while  Louisiana  more  than 
doubled,  Alabama  nearly  trebled,  and  Mississippi  almost  quin- 
tupled their  number  of  slaves.  These  facts  disclose  the  pro- 
portions of  the  internal  slave-trade  and  of  that  most  wretched 
aspect  of  the  institution,  the  breeding  of  slaves  for  market. 

Even  so  methodical  and  frugal  a  planter  as  Washington 
found  that  if  negroes  were  kept  on  the  same  land,  and  they 
and  all  their  increase  supported  upon  it,  "  their  owner  would 
gradually  become  more  and  more  embarrassed  or  impover- 

1  The  Slave-trade,  Carey,  p.  112 ;  Southern  Wealth  and  Northern  Prof- 
its, Kettell,  pp.  130  and  135  ;  Thirty  Years1  View,  Bentou,  vol.  ii.  p.  782; 
A  Journey  in  the  Back  Country,  Olmsted,  pp.  326  and  374. 

9  Report  of  the  Agricultural  Society  of  Baton  Rouge,  La. ;  letter  of 
Johnson,  M.  C.  from  Louisiana,  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  cited 
on  p.  174,  Notes  on  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin,  Stearns  (1853).  The  author  was 
an  Episcopal  clergyman  of  Maryland,  and  the  book  a  defence  of  slavery. 


816  SLAVE-BREEDING  [On.  IV. 

ished."  Yet  the  financial  remedy  was  not  adopted  by  Wash- 
ington ;  he  made  a  rule  neither  to  buy  nor  sell  slaves.1  Jef- 
ferson, although  in  easy  circumstances  when  he  retired  from 
the  presidency,  could  not  make  both  ends  meet  on  his  Mon- 
ticello  estate,  and  died  largely  in  debt.3  Madison  sold  some 
of  his  best  land  to  feed  the  increasing  number  of  his  negroes, 
but  he  confessed  to  Harriet  Martin eau  that  the  week  before 
she  visited  him  he  had  been  obliged  to  sell  a  dozen  of  his 
slaves.3  We  may  be  certain  it  was  with  great  reluctance 
that  the  gentlemen  of  Virginia  came  to  the  point  of  breed- 
ing negroes  to  make  money ;  but  it  was  the  easiest  way  to 
maintain  their  ancient  state,  so  they  eventually  overcame 
their  scruples.  Even  before  Madison  died,  the  professor  of 
history  and  metaphysics  in  the  college  at  which  Jefferson 
was  educated  wrote  in  a  formal  paper :  "  The  slaves  in  Vir- 
ginia multiply  more  rapidly  than  in  most  of  the  Southern 
States ;  the  Virginians  can  raise  cheaper  than  they  can  buy; 
in  fact,  it  is  one  of  their  greatest  sources  of  profit ;"  and  the 
writer  seemed  to  exult  over  the  fact  that  they  were  now 
"  exporting  slaves  "  very  rapidly.4  He  wrote  his  defence  of 
slavery  in  1832,  and  then  thought  that  Virginia  was  annu- 
ally sending  six  thousand  negroes  to  the  Southern  market.* 
For  the  ten  years  preceding  1860  the  average  annual  impor- 
tation of  slaves  into  seven  Southern  States  from  the  slave- 
breeding  States  was  not  far  from  twenty -five  thousand.6 
In  Virginia  the  women  exceeded  in  number  the  men,  and 


1  Bancroft,  vol.  vi.  p.  179.     See  also  letter  of  Washington,  printed  in  the 
Athena-turn,  July  llth,  and  cited  by  the  New  York  Nation,  July  30th,  1891. 
9  Life  of  Jefferson,  Morse,  p.  335. 

*  Retrospect  of  Western  Travel,  vol.  i.  p.  192. 

4  Prof.  Dew,  Pro-slavery  Argument,  pp.  362,  370.  He  afterwards  be- 
came President  of  William  and  Mary  College. 

•  Ibid.,  p.  378. 

6  Cotton  Kingdom,  vol.  i.  p.  58,  note.  See  Slavery  and  Secession, 
Thos.  Ellison,  p.  223.  The  slave  -  exporting  States  were  Maryland,  Vir- 
ginia, Kentucky,  North  Carolina,  Tennessee,  and  Missouri ;  see  also  Pike's 
First  Blows  of  the  Civil  War,  pp.  386, 392, 


CH.  IV.]  SLAVE-BREEDING  817 

were  regarded  in  much  the  same  way  as  are  brood-mares.1 
A  Virginia  gentleman,  in  conversation  with  Olmsted,  con- 
gratulated himself  "  because  his  women  were  uncommonly 
good  breeders ;  he  did  not  suppose  there  was  a  lot  of  women 
anywhere  that  bred  faster  than  his ;  he  never  heard  of  babies 
coming  so  fast  as  they  did  on  his  plantation ;  .  .  .  and  every 
one  of  them,  in  his  estimation,  was  worth  two  hundred  dollars, 
as  negroes  were  selling  now,  the  moment  it  drew  breath."9 
Frederick  Douglass  had  a  master,  professedly  a  Christian, 
opening  and  closing  the  day  with  family  prayer,  who  boast- 
ed that  he  bought  a  woman  slave  simply  uas  a  breeder."* 
When  James  Freeman  Clarke  visited  Baltimore,  a  friend 
who  had  been  at  a  party  one  night  said  there  was  pointed 
out  to  him  a  lady  richly  and  fashionably  dressed,  and  ap- 
parently one  moving  in  the  best  society,  who  derived  her 
income  from  the  sale  of  the  children  of  a  half-dozen  negro 
women  she  owned,  although  their  husbands  belonged  to 
other  masters.4  Sometimes  a  negro  woman  would  be  ad- 
vertised for  sale  as  being  "  very  prolific  in  her  generating 
qualities."  5 

The  law  in  none  of  the  States  recognized  slave  marriages  ;6 
in  all  of  them  the  Roman  principle,  that  the  child  followed 
the  condition  of  its  mother,  was  the  recognized  rule.  Ex- 
cept in  Louisiana,  there  was  no  law  to  prevent  the  violent 
separation  of  husbands  from  wives,  or  children  from  their 
parents.7  The  church  conformed  its  practice  to  the  law. 
The  question  was  put  to  the  Savannah  River  Baptist  Asso- 
ciation, whether  in  the  case  that  slaves  were  separated,  they 


1  Cotton  Kingdom,  vol.  i.  p.  57.     See  debate  in  Virginia  legislature, 
1831-32. 
9  Cotton  Kingdom,  vol.  i.  p.  59.  »  Life  of  Douglass,  p.  118. 

*  Anti-slavery  Days,  James  Freeman  Clarke,  p.  32. 

*  Goodell's  American  Slave  Code,  p.  84. 

*  There  was  a  faint  recognition  by  statute  in  Maryland,  and  by  judicial 
decision  in  Louisiana ;  but  neither  was  of  practical  value.     They  did  not 
prevent  the  separation  by  sale  of  husband  from  wife.    Notes  on  Uncle 
Tom's  Cabin,  Stearns,  p.  38.  7  Stroud's  Slave  Laws,  p.  82. 


318  SLAVES  WERE  CHATTELS  [On.  IT. 

should  be  allowed  to  marry  again.  The  answer  was  in  the 
affirmative,  because  the  separation  was  civilly  equivalent  to 
death,  and  the  ministers  believed  "  that  in  the  sight  of  God 
it  would  be  so  viewed."  It  would  not  be  right,  therefore, 
to  forbid  second  marriages.  It  was  proper  that  the  slaves 
should  act  in  obedience  to  their  masters  and  raise  up  for 
them  progeny.1  The  negro  women  lacked  in  chastity ;  it  is 
true  this  was  a  natural  inclination  of  the  African  race,  but 
that  this  tendency  should  be  fostered  was  an  inevitable  re- 
sult of  slavery.  "  Licentiousness  and  almost  indiscriminate 
sexual  connection  among  the  young,"  said  Olmsted,  "  are 
very  general."8 

Slaves  were  chattels.3  They  could  be  transferred  by  a 
simple  bill  of  sale  as  horses  or  cattle ;  they  could  even  be 
sold  or  given  away  by  their  masters  without  a  writing.4 
The  cruelty  of  separating  families,  involved  in  the  business 
of  selling  slaves  who  were  raised  expressly  for  market,  or  in 
the  division  of  negroes  among  the  heirs  of  a  decedent,  or  in 
their  forced  sale  occasioned  by  the  bankruptcy  of  an  owner, 
appealed  very  forcibly  to  the  North.  It  especially  awak- 
ened the  sympathy  of  Northern  women,  who  counted  for 
much  in  educating  and  influencing  voters  in  a  way  that 
finally  brought  about  the  abolition  of  slavery.  These  sep- 
arations were  not  infrequent,  although  they  were  not  the 
general  rule.  There  was  a  disposition,  on  the  score  of  self- 
interest,  to  avoid  the  tearing  asunder  of  family  ties,  for  the 
reason  that  if  slaves  pined  on  account  of  parting  from  those 
to  whom  they  had  become  attached,  they  labored  less  obedi- 
ently and  were  more  troublesome.  Humane  masters  would, 
whenever  possible,  avoid  selling  the  husband  apart  from  the 


1  Goodell's  American  Slave  Code,  p.  109;  Memorials  of  a  Southern 
Planter,  Smedes,  p.  77. 

*  Seaboard  Slave  States,  Olmsted,  p.  132. 

*  In  Louisiana  and  Kentucky  they  were  in  some  cases  considered  real 
estate,  but  they  did  not  partake  enough  of  the  quality  of  real  property  to 
prevent  their  being  sold  off  from  an  estate.    See  Goodell,  pp.  24, 25, 71, 75. 

*  De  Bow1  a  Review,  vol.  viii.  p.  69. 


CH.IV.]  SLAVE  AUCTIONS  319 

wife,  or  young  children  away  from  the  mother.  The  best 
public  sentiment  of  the  South  frowned  upon  an  unnecessary 
separation  of  families.  It  was  not  unusual  to  find  men 
making  a  money  sacrifice  to  prevent  a  rending  of  family  at- 
tachments, or  generous  people  contributing  a  sum  to  avert 
such  an  evil.1  The  prominence  given  in  their  arguments  by 
the  abolitionists  to  this  feature  of  the  system  undoubtedly 
influenced  the  South  to  abate  this  cruelty.  The  apologists 
of  slavery  never  defended  the  separation  of  families ;  it  was 
admitted  to  be  a  necessary  evil,  and  pains  were  taken  to  give 
Northern  and  foreign  visitors  the  impression  that  such  cases 
were  of  rare  occurrence. 

It  is  very  probable  that  a  good  deal  of  the  Northern  sym- 
pathy on  this  subject  was  misplaced.  Heart-rending  scenes 
at  slave  auctions  certainly  took  place,  and  the  many  inci- 
dents recounted  in  the  abolition  literature  are  perhaps  all  of 
them  trustworthy  relations,8  yet  they  as  surely  represent 


1  Lyell,  Second  Visit  to  the  United  States,  vol.  i.  p.  209 ;  Notes  on  Uncle 
Tom's  Cabin,  p.  40 ;  Pro-slavery  Argument,  p.  132.  For  the  subject  dis- 
cussed thoroughly,  from  the  abolitionist  standpoint,  see  Key  to  Uncle 
Tom's  Cabin,  p.  133.  The  Key  to  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin  is  mainly  a  collec- 
tion of  pieces  justificatives.  For  confirmation  of  statements  in  the  text, 
see  p.  137.  Memorials  of  a  Southern  Planter,  Smedes,  p.  48.  The  result 
of  Edmund  Yates's  observations  was  that  separations  were  frequent.  "At 
Richmond  and  New  Orleans  I  was  present  at  slave  auctions,  and  did  not 
see  one  instance  of  a  married  pair  being  sold  together ;  but,  without  ex- 
ception, so  far  as  I  was  able  to  learn  from  the  negroes  sold  by  the  auc- 
tioneers, every  grown-up  man  left  a  wife,  and  every  grown-up  woman  a 
husband."— Letter  to  the  Women  of  England,  cited  in  Greeley's  American 
Conflict,  p.  70. 

8  See  the  account  of  the  editor  of  the  Pennsylvania  Freeman,  Dec.  25th, 
1846,  of  a  sale  at  Petersburg,  Va.,  cited  in  Key  to  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin, 
p.  137.  When  the  negroes  found  out  that  they  were  to  be  sold  "the 
effect  was  indescribably  agonizing."  ••  A  mother  cried  "in  frantic  grief" 
when  her  boy  was  sold.  "  During  the  sale,  the  quarters  resounded  with 
cries  and  lamentations  that  made  my  heart  ache." 

Edmund  Yates  writes :  "  I  saw  Mr.  Pulliam  [of  Richmond]  sell  to  dif- 
ferent buyers  two  daughters  away  from  their  mother,  who  was  also  to  be 
•old.  This  unfortunate  woman  was  a  quadroon  •,  and  I  shall  not  soon 


320  SLAVE  AUCTIONS  [On.  IV. 

only  a  phase  and  not  the  universal  rule.  The  detailed,  mi- 
nute, and  celebrated  account  of  a  slave  auction  at  Richmond 
by  William  Chambers,  the  publisher,  of  Edinburgh,  is  un- 
doubtedly a  fair  relation  of  what  many  times  occurred.  At 
one  establishment  there  were  ten  negroes  offered  for  sale. 
The  intending  purchasers  examined  the  slaves  by  feeling 
the  arms  of  all  and  the  ankles  of  the  women ;  they  looked 
into  their  mouths  and  examined  carefully  their  hands  and 
fingers.  One  of  the  lots  was  a  full-blooded  negro  woman 
with  three  children.  "  Her  children  were  all  girls,  one  of 
them  a  baby  at  the  breast,  three  months  old,  and  the  others 
two  and  three  years  of  age.  .  .  .  There  was  not  a  tear  or  an 
emotion  visible  in  the  whole  party.  Everything  seemed  to 
be  considered  a  matter  of  course ;  and  the  change  of  owners 
was  possibly  looked  forward  to  with  as  much  indifference  as 
ordinary  hired  servants  anticipate  a  removal  from  one  em- 
ployer to  another."  Chambers  took  an  offered  opportunity 
to  converse  with  the  woman,  who  told  him  she  had  been 
parted  from  her  husband  two  days,  and  that  her  heart  was 
almost  broken  at  the  thought  of  the  lasting  separation. 
The  writer  continues :  "  I  have  said  that  there  was  an  entire 
absence  of  emotion  in  the  party  of  men,  women,  and  chil- 
dren thus  seated,  preparatory  to  being  sold.  This  does  not 
correspond  with  the  ordinary  accounts  of  slave  sales,  which 
are  represented  as  tearful  and  harrowing.  My  belief  is  that 
none  of  the  parties  felt  deeply  on  the  subject,  or  at  least 
that  any  distress  they  experienced  was  but  momentary — 


forget  the  large  tears  that  started  to  her  eyes  as  she  saw  her  two  children 
sold  away  from  her." 

"  Who  was  the  greatest  orator  you  ever  heard  ?"  asked  Josiah  Quincy 
of  John  Randolph.  "  The  greatest  orator  I  ever  heard,"  replied  Ran- 
dolph, "  was  a  woman.  She  was  a  slave.  She  was  a  mother,  and  her 
rostrum  was  the  auction-block."— Figures  of  the  Past,  p.  212. 

See  account  of  Lewis  Hayden,  Key  to  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin,  p.  155 ;  Anti- 
slavery  Manual  (1837),  p.  109;  Slave  States  of  America,  Buckingham, 
voL  i.  p.  183;  also  Retrospect  of  Western  Travel,  Martineau,  vol.  i  p. 
285. 


OH.  IV.]  SLAVE  AUCTIONS  321 

soon  passed  away  and  was  forgotten.  One  of  my  reasons 
for  this  opinion  rests  on  a  trifling  incident  which  occurred. 
While  waiting  for  the  commencement  of  the  sale,  one  of  the 
gentlemen  present  amused  himself  with  a  pointer-dog  which, 
at  command,  stood  on  its  hind-legs  and  took  pieces  of  bread 
from  his  pocket.  These  tricks  greatly  entertained  the  row 
of  negroes,  old  and  young ;  and  the  poor  woman  whose  heart 
three  minutes  before  was  almost  broken  now  laughed  as 
heartily  as  any  one." 1  Chambers  spent  a  forenoon  in  visit- 
ing different  establishments  where  slaves  were  sold  at  auc- 


1  Things  in  America,  W.  Chambers,  pp.  279,  280.  The  whole  account 
is  worth  reading.  A  similar  account  of  a  slave  auction,  which  took  place 
at  Savannah,  may  be  found  in  the  New  York  Tribune  of  April  28th,  1860, 
translated  from  Das  Ausland;  see  also  Promenade  en  Amerique,  J.  J. 
Ampere,  tome  ii.  p.  113.  See  also  account  of  the  "  great  auction  sale  of 
slaves  at  Savannah,  March  2d  and  3d,  1859,"  by  a  correspondent  of  the 
New  York  Tribune,  published  in  the  New  York  Tribune,  and  in  pamphlet 
in  1863. 

When  Seward  visited  Virginia,  in  1846,  there  were  on  the  steamboat  OB 
which  he  travelled  seventy-five  slaves  who  were  on  the  way  to  New  Or- 
leans to  be  sold.  As  they  arrived  at  a  port  of  entry  where  the  ship  lay 
at  anchor  which  was  to  take  them  south,  Seward  watched  them  with  in- 
tense interest  as  they  filed  from  the  steamboat  to  the  ship,  which  had 
already  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  fellow  negroes  doomed  to  the  same 
destiny.  He  writes :  "  As  I  stood  looking  at  this  strange  scene  a  gentle- 
man stepped  up  to  my  side  and  said, '  You  see  the  curse  that  our  fore- 
fathers bequeathed  to  us.' 

"  I  replied,  *  Yes,'  and  turned  away,  to  conceal  manifestations  of  sym- 
pathy I  might  not  express. 

" '  Oh,'  said  my  friend, '  they  don't  mind  it ;  they  are  cheerful ;  they 
enjoy  the  transportation  and  travel  as  much  as  you  do.' 

"  *  I  am  glad  they  do,'  said  I,  *  poor\wretches  1' 

"  The  lengthened  file  at  last  had  all  reached  the  deck  of  the  slaver,  and 
we  cut  loose.  The  captain  of  our  boat,  seeing  me  intensely  interested, 
turned  to  me  and  said :  '  Oh !  sir,  do  not  be  concerned  about  them ;  they 
are  the  happiest  people  in  the  world.'  I  looked,  and  there  they  were — 
slaves,  ill  protected  from  the  cold,  fed  capriciously  on  the  commonest  food 
— going  from  all  that  was  dear  to  all  that  was  terrible,  and  still  they  wept 
not.  I  thanked  God  that  he  had  made  them  insensible.  And  these  were 
'the  happiest  people  in  the  world !' " — Life  of  Seward,  vol.  i.  p.  778. 
I.— 21 


822  JEFFERSON  ON  THE   NEGROES  [Ca  IV. 

tion.  His  blood  boiled  with  indignation  to  see  a  human 
being,  though  with  a  black  skin,  sold  "  just  like  a  horse  at 
Tattersall's ;"  yet  he  closed  his  narrative  with  :  "  It  would 
not  have  been  difficult  to  speak  strongly  on  a  subject  which 
appeals  so  greatly  to  the  feelings ;  but  I  have  preferred  tell- 
ing the  simple  truth." 

Jefferson,  who  hated  slavery  and  who  studied  negroes 
with  the  eye  of  the  planter  and  philosopher,  thus  compared 
them  with  the  whites :  "  They  are  more  ardent  after  their 
female ;  but  love  seems  with  them  to  be  more  an  eager  de- 
sire than  a  tender,  delicate  mixture  of  sentiment  and  sensa- 
tion. Their  griefs  are  transient.  Those  numberless  afflic- 
tions which  render  it  doubtful  whether  heaven  has  given 
life  to  us  in  mercy  or  in  wrath,  are  less  felt  and  sooner  for- 
gotten with  them." l  A  careful  study  of  the  slaves  of  the 
generation  before  the  civil  war  must  lead  to  the  same  con- 
clusion.1 The  earnest  and  educated  women  of  the  North  un- 
consciously invested  the  negroes  with  their  own  fine  feelings, 
and  estimated  the  African's  grief  at  separation  from  her 
family  by  what  would  be  their  own  at  a  like  fate.  The  sell- 
ing of  a  wife  away  from  her  husband,  or  a  mother  away 
from  her  children,  appeared  to  their  emotional  natures  sim- 
ply horrible.  It  seemed  a  cruel  act,  for  which  there  could 
be  no  excuse  or  mitigation.  It  was  a  vulnerable  part  of  the 
system;  the  abolitionists,  attacking  it  with  impetuosity, 
gained  the  sympathy  of  the  larger  portion  of  thinking 
Northern  women.  This  earnestness  was  not  simulated,  for 
the  injustice  likewise  appealed  strongly  to  the  emotional 
temperament  of  the  abolitionists.  Garrison  identified  him- 
self so  closely  with  the  negroes,  whose  cause  he  had  made 

1  Notes  on  Virginia,  Jefferson's  Works,  vol.  viii.  p.  382. 

9  See  account  of  a  slave  auction  at  Richmond  in  Travels  of  Arfbredson, 
Anti-slavery  Manual,  p.  114 ;  also  Key  to  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin,  p.  152 ;  Olm- 
sted's  Seaboard  Slave  States,  p.  556 ;  Promenade  en  Amgriquc,  J.  J. 
Ampere,  vol.  ii.  p.  115.  "The  negro  [in  Africa]  knows  not  love,  affec- 
tion, or  jealousy."— Cited  by  Herbert  Spencer,  Sociology,  vol.  i.  p.  663. 
"  The  negro  race  do  not  understand  kissing."— Ibid.,  vol.  ii.  p.  17. 


CH.IV.]  THE  DOMESTIC  SLAVE-TRADE  323 

his  own,  that  in  addressing  a  body  of  them  he  said  that  he 
was  ashamed  of  his  own  color.1 

It  could  not  be  denied  that  an  extensive  traffic  in  slaves 
existed  all  through  the  South.  "  Cash  for  Negroes,"  "  Ne- 
groes for  Sale,"  and  "Negroes  Wanted,"  were  as  common 
advertisements  in  the  Southern  papers  as  notices  of  proposed 
sales  of  horses  and  mules.  Indeed,  the  two  kinds  of  prop- 
erty were  frequently  advertised  and  sold  together.  An  ad- 
ministrator offers  "horses,  mules,  cattle,  hogs,  sheep,  and 
several  likely  young  negroes ;"  a  sheriff  announces  the  sale 
of  "  ten  head  of  cattle,  twenty-five  head  of  hogs,  and  seven 
negroes ;"  an  auctioneer  bespeaks  attendance  at  the  court- 
house in  Columbia,  S.  C.,  for  an  opportunity  such  as  seldom 
occurs,  for  he  will  offer  one  hundred  valuable  negroes,  among 
whom  are  "  twenty-five  prime  young  men,  forty  of  the  most 
likely  young  women,  and  as  fine  a  set  of  children  as  can  be 
shown."  A  dealer  at  Memphis  offers  the  highest  cash  price 
for  slaves,  and  one  at  Baltimore  wants  to  buy  five  thousand 
negroes  and  announces  that  families  are  "  never  separated." 
A  firm  at  Natchez,  Miss.,  advertises  "fresh  arrivals  weekly 
of  slaves,"  and  promises  to  keep  constantly  "  a  large  and 
well-selected  stock."  A  competitor  in  the  same  city  offers 
"  ninety  negroes  just  arrived  from  Richmond,  consisting  of 
field  hands,  house  -  servants,  carriage  -  drivers,  several  fine 
cooks,  and  some  excellent  mules,  and  one  very  fine  riding- 
horse  ;"  and  he  advises  his  patrons  that  he  has  "  made  ar- 
rangements in  Richmond  to  have  regular  shipments  every 
month,  and  intends  to  keep  a  good  stock  on  hand  of  every 
description  of  servants."  An  auctioneer  in  New  Orleans 
announces  for  sale  three  splendid  paintings,  "  The  Circassian 
Slave,"  "The  Lion  Fight,"  and  "The  Crucifixion;"  also, 
"  Delia,  aged  seventeen,  a  first-rate  cook ;  Susan,  aged  six- 
teen, a  mulatress,  a  good  house-girl ;  Ben,  aged  fourteen, 
and  Peyton,  aged  sixteen,  smart  house-boys ;"  and  adds, "  The 
above  slaves  are  fully  guaranteed  and  sold  for  no  fault."  A 


1  Life  of  Garrison,  vol.  i.  p.  158. 


324  THE  DOMESTIC  SLAVE-TRADE  [On.  IV. 

storekeeper  of  New  Orleans,  who  was  also  a  colonel,  at  the 
request  of  his  many  acquaintances,  got  up  for  their  amuse- 
ment a  raffle  where  the  prizes  were  a  dark -bay  horse, 
warranted  sound,  with  a  trotting  buggy  and  harness,  and 
"the  stout  mulatto  girl  Sarah,  aged  about  twenty -nine 
years,  general  house-servant,  valued  at  nine  hundred  dollars 
and  guaranteed." !  There  might  be  seen  now  and  then  in 
the  New  Orleans  papers  an  advertisement  of  a  lot  of  pious 
negroes.2  A  curious  notice  appeared  in  the  Religious  Her- 
ald, a  Baptist  journal  published  in  Richmond :  "  Who  wants 
thirty -five  thousand  dollars  in  property  ?  I  am  desirous  to 
spend  the  balance  of  my  life  as  a  missionary,  if  the  Lord 
permit,  and  therefore  offer  for  sale  my  farm — the  vineyard 
adjacent  to  Williamsburg  .  .  .  and  also  about  forty  ser- 
vants, mostly  young  and  likely,  and  rapidly  increasing  in 
numbers  and  value." 8  By  actual  count  made  from  the  ad- 
vertisements in  sixty-four  newspapers  published  in  eight 
slave  States  during  the  last  two  weeks  of  November,  1852, 
there  were  offered  for  sale  four  thousand  one  hundred  ne- 
groes.4 The  good  society  of  the  South  looked  upon  slave 
dealers  and  auctioneers  with  contempt.  Their  occupation 
was  regarded  as  base,  and  they  were  treated  by  gentlemen 
as  the  publicans  were  by  the  Pharisees.  The  opening  scene 
of  "  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin "  was  criticised  as  inaccurate,  for  it 
showed  a  Kentucky  gentleman  entertaining  at  table  a  vul- 
gar slave-dealer.6  The  utter  scorn  with  which  such  men 


1  New  Orleans  True  Delta,  Jan.  llth,  1853,  cited  in  Key  to  Uncle  Tom's 
Cabin,  p.  182 ;  New  Orleans  Picayune,  Jan.,  1844  ;  Second  Visit  to  Amer- 
ica, Lyell,  vol.  ii.  p.  126  ;  Key  to  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin,  p.  134  et  seq.,  where 
copies  of  large  numbers  of  similar  advertisements  may  be  found.  See 
description  and  illustration  of  an  auction  in  the  rotunda  of  the  St.  Louis 
Hotel,  New  Orleans,  of  estates,  pictures,  and  slaves.  Slave  States  of 
America,  Buckingham,  vol.  i.  p.  334. 

8  Retrospect  of  Western  Travel,  Martineau,  vol.  i.  p.  250. 

*  New  York  Independent,  March  21st,  1850. 
4  Key  to  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin,  p.  142. 

•  Notes  on  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin,  Stearns,  p.  145. 


OH.  IV.]  THE  FLOGGING  OF  SLAVES  325 

were  regarded  was  a  condemnation  of  slavery  in  the  house 
of  its  friends.1 

A  feature  of  the  institution  that  aroused  much  indigna- 
tion at  the  North  was  its  cruelty,  as  evidenced  by  the  rigor 
with  which  the  lash  was  used.  We  have  seen  that  flogging 
necessarily  accompanied  this  system  of  labor.2  The  master 
and  the  overseer  held  the  theory  that  the  negroes  were  but 
children  and  should  be  chastised  on  the  principle  of  the  an- 
cient schoolmaster  who  carried  out  the  injunctions  of  Solo- 
mon. This  was  also  in  the  main  the  practice,  but  wanton 
cruelty  did  not  rule.8  At  times,  however,  a  fit  of  drunkenness, 
an  access  of  ill-temper,  or  a  burst  of  passion  would  incite  the 
man  who  had  unrestrained  power  to  use  it  like  a  brute.4 
Abolition  literature  is  full  of  such  instances,  well  attested. 

Slaves  were  sometimes  whipped  to  death.6  The  murder- 
ers were  occasionally  tried,  and  once  in  a  while  convicted, 


1  "You  [i.e.  the  Southern  people]  have  among  you  a  sneaking  indi- 
vidual of  the  class  of  native  tyrants  known  as  the  slave-dealer.  He 
watches  your  necessities,  and  crawls  up  to  buy  your  slave  at  a  specu- 
lating price.  If  you  cannot  help  it,  you  sell  to  him;  but  if  you  can  help 
it,  you  drive  him  from  your  door.  You  despise  him  utterly.  You  do  not 
recognize  him  as  a  friend,  or  even  as  an  honest  man.  Your  children  must 
not  play  with  his ;  they  may  rollick  freely  with  the  little  negroes,  but 
not  with  the  slave-dealer's  children.  If  you  are  obliged  to  deal  with 
him,  you  try  to  get  through  the  job  without  so  much  as  touching  him. 
It  is  common  with  you  to  join  hands  with  the  men  you  meet ;  but  with 
the  slave-dealer  you  avoid  the  ceremony — instinctively  shrinking  from 
the  snaky  contact.  .  .  .  Now,  why  is  this  ?  You  do  not  so  treat  the  man 
who  deals  in  corn,  cattle,  or  tobacco." — Lincoln  at  Peoria,  Oct.  16th,  1854. 
Life  by  Ho  wells,  p.  276. 

1  See  pp.  308  and  309. 

8  Cotton  Kingdom,  vol.  i.  p.  354 ;  Kemble,  p.  229.  "  The  slave-owners, 
as  a  body,  are  not  cruel,  and  many  of  them  treat  their  slaves  with  paternal 
and  patriarchal  kindness." — Life  and  Liberty  in  America,  Chas.  Mackay, 
vol.  i.  p.  314. 

*  Olmsted's  Seaboard  Slave  States,  p.  485 ;  Kemble,  p.  175;  Life  of  Fred. 
Douglass,  pp.  38,  111.  See  also  the  graphic  account  of  the  whipping  of 
a  woman  which  Olmsted  witnessed,  Cotton  Kingdom,  vol.  ii.  p.  205. 

5  See  Key  to  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin,  pp.  60-80,  92  et  seq. 


326  THE  FLOGGING  OF  SLAVES  [On.  IV. 

but  they  were  never  hanged ;  more  frequently,  however,  as 
the  violent  act  was  usually  witnessed  only  by  negroes,  no 
proof  could  be  obtained,1  and  the  perpetrator  was  not  even 
arrested.  When  negroes  themselves  committed  a  capital 
crime,  there  were  instances  of  burning  them  to  death  at  the 
stake." 

One  finds,  however,  notice  of  plantations  on  which  the 
slaves  were  never  whipped.  Ampere,  who  had  no  sympathy 
with  slavery,  visited  a  German  who  owned  a  plantation  near 
Charleston,  and  who,  having  no  cruelty  or  tyranny  in  his 
nature,  appeared  to  be  literally  oppressed  by  his  blacks.  He 
was  so  humane  that  he  would  not  whip  his  slaves.  The 
slaves  showed  him  little  gratitude,  and  labored  sluggishly 
and  with  great  carelessness.  When  he  went  into  a  cabin 
where  the  negresses  were  at  work  cleaning  cotton,  he  con- 
fined himself  to  showing  them  how  badly  their  task  was 
done  and  explaining  to  them  the  considerable  damage  which 
their  negligence  caused  him.  His  observations  were  re- 
ceived with  grumbling  and  sullenness.  Ampere  saw  in  this 
case  an  excellent  argument  against  slavery.  Had  the  gen- 
tleman hired  his  laborers  he  would  have  dismissed  them  if 
they  did  not  work  to  his  liking ;  but  under  the  Southern 
system  his  choice  lay  simply  between  whipping  them  or  be- 
coming a  victim  to  their  idleness.3  Masters  like  this  were 


1  Seep.  309. 

'  See  Cotton  Kingdom,  vol.  ii.  pp.  348,  354.  "  That  slaves  have  ever 
been  burned  alive  has  been  indignantly  denied.  The  late  Judge  Jay  told 
me  that  he  had  evidence  in  his  possession  of  negro  burnings  every  year  in 
the  last  twenty."  See  also  New  York  Weekly  Tribune,  Oct.  3d,  1857 ;  Anti- 
slavery  History  of  the  John  Brown  Year,  p.  205 ;  Debate  in  the  House  of 
Representatives,  March  8th,  1860 ;  New  York  Tribune,  March  12th,  20th, 
and  Aug.  24th,  1860.  The  grave  historian  Richard  Hildreth  so  abhorred 
slavery  that,  before  writing  his  serious  work,  Despotism  in  America,  he 
gave  to  the  press  anonymously  a  novel,  The  White  Slave,  in  which  he 
describes  with  fidelity  the  burning  of  a  negro  at  the  stake,  who  was  a 
fugitive  and  a  murderer,  see  chap.  xlv. 

1  Promenade  en  Amerique,  J.  J.  Ampere,  tome  i.  p.  114. 


CH.  IV.]  LEGISLATION  AGAINST  TEACHING  SLAVES  327 

certainly  rare  in  the  cotton  region,  but  as  one  travelled 
northward,  slavery  appeared  under  milder  features.  A 
New  England  girl  became  a  governess  upon  a  Tennessee 
plantation  where  no  slave  had  been  whipped  for  seven 
years ;  she  became  reconciled  to  slavery,  and  did  not  find  in 
reality  the  "  revolting  horrors  "  in  it  for  which  a  Northern 
education  had  prepared  her.1  In  Virginia,  Olmsted  saw  no 
whipping  of  slaves  except  of  wild,  lazy  children  as  they 
were  being  broken  in  to  work ;  and  he  heard  of  but  little 
harshness  or  cruelty.8 

In  our  time,  when  the  desire  for  education  is  common  to 
all,  and  the  need  of  it  universally  acknowledged,  it  is  interest- 
ing to  inquire  how  this  matter  was  dealt  with  by  the  slave- 
holders. North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Alabama, 
and  Louisiana  forbade,  under  penalties,  the  teaching  of  slaves 
to  read  or  write.  In  Virginia  the  owners,  but  no  one  else, 
might  instruct  their  negroes,  and  in  North  Carolina  the  slaves 
might  be  taught  arithmetic.  Some  of  these  enactments 
were  on  the  statute-books  before  1831,  but  everywhere  after 
that  date  the  laws  were  made  more  stringent  and  were  more 
effectually  enforced.3  This  year  was  memorable  for  the  Nat 
Turner  insurrection  and  for  the  beginning  of  a  systematic 
abolition  agitation  by  Garrison  in  the  Liberator.  The  usual 
apology  at  the  South  for  these  laws  was  their  alleged  neces- 
sity to  prevent  the  negroes  from  reading  the  abolition  docu- 
ments sent  to  the  slave  States,  which  were  incitements  to 
insurrection.  The  course  which  legislation  took  after  1831 
has  led  many  Northern  writers  to  infer  that  the  anti-slavery 
agitation  was  the  cause  of  slaves  being  treated  more  inhu- 
manly than  before.  In  so  far  as  the  withholding  of  priv- 
ileges of  education  and  association  was  a  cruelty  they  are 
right;  but  they  are  wrong  when  they  have  assumed  that 


1  The  Sunny  South,  Ingraham,  pp.  59, 143. 

2  Cotton  Kingdom,  vol.  i.  pp.  94  and  131. 

•  Stroud's  Slave  Laws,  p.  138  et  seq. ;  Goodell's  American  Slave  Code, 
p.  20. 


328   SOUTHERN  SENTIMENT  ON  TEACHING  THE  SLAVES  [CH.  IV. 

more  positive  brutality  prevailed.  A  careful  examination 
of  the  slavery  literature  will  hardly  fail  to  lead  to  the  con- 
clusion that  the  flood  of  light  which  the  abolitionists  threw 
upon  the  practice  influenced  the  slave-owners  to  mitigate 
its  most  cruel  features.1  The  thesis  that  slavery  is  a  posi- 
tive good  began  to  be  maintained  after  1831,  but  no  amount 
of  arrogant  assertion  could  prevent  the  advocates  of  slavery 
from  being  put  on  the  defensive.  Their  earnest  endeavors 
to  convince  Northern  and  foreign  visitors  of  the  benefits  of 
the  system  show  their'  appreciation  of  the  fact  that  it  was 
under  the  ban  of  the  civilized  world ;  and  this  very  necessity 
of  justifying  their  peculiar  institution  made  them  desirous  of 
suppressing,  as  far  as  possible,  those  features  of  it  which 
they  admitted  to  be  evil. 

The  ideas  about  the  education  of  negroes  were  not  every- 
where alike,  and  there  were  other  defences  of  their  being 
kept  in  ignorance  than  the  one  which  I  have  mentioned.  A 
Georgia  rice  and  cotton  planter  said  that  "  the  very  slight- 
est amount  of  education,  merely  teaching  them  to  read,  im- 
pairs their  value  as  slaves,  for  it  instantly  destroys  their  con- 
tentedness ;  and  since  you  do  not  contemplate  changing  their 
condition,  it  is  surely  doing  them  an  ill  service  to  destroy 
their  acquiescence  in  it." a  The  Georgia  gentleman  was  only 
partly  right.  A  mass  of  advertisements  of  slaves  for  sale 
shows  that  instruction  made  them  more  valuable,  although  it 


1  See,  for  example,  Baltimore  American,  quoted  in  Slavery  and  Color, 
W.  Chambers,  p.  173.  Seward  made  a  visit  to  Culpepper  Court-house  and 
wrote  his  wife,  Dec.  14th,  1857:  "It  is  quite  manifest  that  the  long  de- 
bate about  slavery  has  made  a  deep  impression  on  the  minds  and  hearts 
of  the  more  refined  and  generous  portion  of  the  families  in  Virginia. 
The  word  '  slaves '  is  seldom  used.  They  are  '  servants,'  '  hands.'  They 
are  treated  with  kindness,  and  they  appear  clean,  tidy,  and  comfortable. 
I  happened  to  fall  in  upon  a  husking  frolic  on  Mr.  Pendleton's  planta- 
tion, and  it  was  indeed  a  merry  and  noisy  scene.  My  visit  was  very 
pleasant.  Mrs.  Pendleton  is  a  lady  you  would  respect  and  love.  She  is 
sad  with  cares  and  responsibilities  which  she  has  too  much  conscien- 
tiousness to  cast  off." — Life  of  Seward,  vol.  ii.  p.  331. 

»  Kemble,  p.  9. 


OH.  IV.]  RELIGIOUS  TEACHING  329 

is  also  true  that  it  made  them  more  dangerous.1  The  prob- 
lem of  the  master  was  to  impart  sufficient  knowledge  to 
make  the  slave  useful  without  making  him  restless.9 

Chancellor  Harper,  in  defending  the  law  of  South  Caro- 
lina, reasoned  that  the  slaves  had  to  work  during  the  day 
with  their  hands,  and  in  their  intervals  of  leisure  few  cared 
to  read  for  amusement  or  instruction.  "  Of  the  many  slaves," 
he  writes, "  whom  I  have  known  capable  of  reading,  I  have 
never  known  one  to  read  anything  but  the  Bible,  and  this 
task  they  impose  on  themselves  as  matter  of  duty ;"  but  this 
is  an  inefficient  method  of  religious  instruction,  for  "  their 
comprehension  is  defective,  and  the  employment  is  to  them 
an  unusual  and  laborious  one."8  Another  South  Carolina 
judge,  of  equal  prominence,  took  an  entirely  different  view. 
He  advocated  the  repeal  of  the  law  which  forbade  the  in- 
struction of  the  slaves.  "  When  we  reflect  as  Christians," 
he  writes, "  how  can  we  justify  it  that  a  slave  is  not  to  be 
permitted  to  read  the  Bible?  It  is  in  vain  to  say  there  is 
danger  in  it.  The  best  slaves  in  the  State  are  those  who 
can  and  do  read  the  Scriptures.  Again,  who  is  it  that  teach 
your  slaves  to  read  ?  It  generally  is  done  by  the  children 
of  the  owners.  Who  would  tolerate  an  indictment  against 
his  son  or  daughter  for  teaching  a  favorite  slave  to  read  ? 
Such  laws  look  to  me  as  rather  cowardly."  *  In  spite  of  the 
law,  then,  house-servants  were  frequently  taught  to  read.' 
Field  hands,  on  the  contrary,  remained  in  gross  ignorance, 
even  where  there  were  no  prohibitory  statutes.  In  Mary- 
land the  teaching  of  slaves  was  not  forbidden  by  law,"  yet 
an  apologist  of  slavery  admits  that  as  a  general  thing  they 
were  not  taught  to  read  in  that  State.7  Frederick  Douglass 


1  See  Despotism  in  America,  Richard  Hildreth,  p.  63 ;  also  Cotton  King- 
dom, vol.  ii.  p.  82. 

See  Cotton  Kingdom,  vol.  i.  p.  61.        *  Pro-slavery  Argument,  p.  86. 

Judge  J.  B.  O'Neall,  De  Bow's  Resources,  vol.  ii.  p.  269. 

See,  for  example,  Memorials  of  a  Southern  Planter,  Smedes,  p.  79. 

The  Negro  in  Maryland,  Brackett,  p.  197. 

Notes  on  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin,  Stearns,  p.  86. 


330  FREDERICK  DOUGLASS  [Cn.IV. 

relates  that  he  had  to  teach  his  fellow-slaves  on  the  planta- 
tion by  stealth,  and  that  when  the  secret  was  discovered  his 
school  was  broken  up;  he  was  told,  moreover,  that  if  he 
were  striving  to  be  another  Nat  Turner  he  would  very  speed- 
ily meet  that  negro's  fate.1  Douglass  himself,  while  house- 
servant  in  his  boyhood  to  a  Baltimore  lady,  had  been  taught 
to  read  by  his  mistress ;  but  he  relates  that,  although  he  was 
eager  to  learn  and  his  teacher  was  proud  of  her  pupil's  rapid 
progress,  the  master,  when  he  came  to  hear  of  this  instruc- 
tion, peremptorily  forbade  further  lessons,  because  it  was 
thought  learning  would  spoil  the  best  negro  in  the  world  by 
making  him  disconsolate  and  unhappy.1 

And  there  were  exceptions  even  to  the  crass  ignorance  of 
field  hands.  Olmsted  visited  a  Mississippi  plantation  where 
all  the  negroes  knew  how  to  read :  they  had  been  taught  by 
one  of  their  number,  and  with  the  permission  of  the  owner. 
They  were  well  fed,  and  did  good,  honest  work.  The  master 
was  growing  rich  from  the  fruits  of  their  labor,  and,  though 
illiterate  himself,  was  proud  of  his  instructed  and  religious 


Closely  allied  with  the  subject  of  education  is  that  of  re- 
ligious nurture.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  South- 
ern people  were  very  pious,  and  held  strictly  to  the  ortho- 
dox faith.  Liberal  religious  movements  made  no  headway 
among  them.  If  anything  were  needed  to  make  the  names 
of  Garrison  and  Parker  more  opprobrious  in  the  South,  it 


1  Life  of  Fred.  Douglass,  p.  105. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  70.  Sarah  Griinke  received  a  severe  rebuke  for  teaching 
her  little  negro  maid  to  read.  The  Sisters  Grimke,  Birney,  p.  12. 
**  Slavery  and  knowledge  cannot  live  together.  To  enlighten  the  slave 
is  to  break  his  chain.  ...  He  cannot  be  left  to  read  in  an  enlight- 
ened age  without  endangering  his  master;  for  what  can  he  read  which 
will  not  give  at  least  some  hint  of  his  wrongs  ?  Should  his  eye  chance 
to  fall  on  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  how  would  the  truth  glare  on 
him  'that  all  men  are  born  free  and  equal?' " — Channing  on  Slavery,  p. 
75. 

'  Cotton  Kingdom,  vol.  ii.  p.  70. 


CH.  IV.]  RELIGIOUS  TEACHING  331 

was  that  they  were  reproached  with  being  infidels.1  The 
practice  of  giving  religious  instruction  to  the  slaves  varied 
greatly,  according  to  the  temper  of  the  master.  Bishop 
Polk,  of  Louisiana,  who  owned  four  hundred  slaves,  was 
very  careful  about  their  religious  training.  They  were 
baptized  and  taught  the  catechism ;  at  a  proper  age  many 
of  them  were  confirmed ;  marriages  were  solemnized  ac- 
cording to  the  ritual  of  the  Episcopal  Church.  The  influ- 
ence of  the  bishop  among  the  church  people  of  his  diocese 
was  beneficial.8  Other  masters,  from  indolence,  paid  little 
attention  to  the  matter,  while  still  others  discouraged  relig- 
ious instruction,  believing  it  to  be  dangerous.  Religious  ex- 
ercises among  the  slaves,  however,  were  rarely  forbidden.8 
It  was  the  opinion  of  Fanny  Kemble  that  the  systematic 
preaching  to  the  negroes,  common  in  her  neighborhood,  was 
largely  due  to  the  exposure  in  the  abolition  literature  of 
former  neglect.  Sometimes  the  slaves  of  an  estate  were 
preached  to  by  one  of  their  own  number,  or  by  one  from 
a  neighboring  plantation.  After  the  day  of  Nat  Turner,  it 
was  customary  at  these  meetings  to  have  white  men  pres- 
ent, and  in  some  States  this  was  required  by  law.  There 
were  also  legal  restrictions  in  regard  to  negroes  assembling 
at  night  for  worship.  Free  blacks,  who  were  itinerant 
preachers,  were  everywhere  frowned  upon,  and  frequently 
prevented  from  pursuing  their  calling. 

There  was  a  strong  feeling  that  the  religious  instruction 
should  be  given  by  white  preachers.  Many  of  these  moved 
in  the  same  sphere  of  society  as  the  slave-holders,  and  prac- 
'tically  all  of  them  had  the  feelings  of  the  dominant  class. 
"Servants,  obey  in  all  things  your  "masters,"  was  their  fa- 
vorite text,  and  the  slaves  were  solemnly  enjoined  to  be  sat- 
isfied with  their  lot  on  earth ;  though  the  conditions  were 


1  In  regard  to  Garrison,  see  his  Life,  vol.  iii.  p.  374. 

*  See  note,  p.  213,  vol.  ii.  Cotton  Kingdom. 

•  Ibid.,  p.  222 ;  see  also  Promenade  en  Ame'rique,  Ampere,  tome  ii 
p.  144. 


332  CONDITION  OF  THE  SLAVES  [Cn.IV: 

often  hard,  they  were  assured  that  if  they  remained  faith- 
ful and  steadfast,  their  reward  hereafter  would  be  exceed- 
ing great.1  Following  the  teaching  of  the  fathers  of  the 
church,  they  took  pains  to  impress  upon  the  slaves  that 
while  they  suffered  from  the  fall  of  Adam,  they  labored 
likewise  under  the  curse  of  Canaan ;  that  to  this  were  due 
their  black  skin  and  hard  hands ;  that  these  were  manifes- 
tations of  God's  displeasure,  and  pointed  them  out  as  proper 
subjects  of  slavery.3 

The  slaves  were  fond  of  religious  exercises.  Even  the 
arid  discourses  of  the  white  clergymen  were  a  relief  from 
their  monotonous  daily  toil,  while  to  attend  upon  the  ex- 
hortations of  one  of  their  own  color  gave  unalloyed  de- 
light. Yet  there  did  not  seem  to  be  in  the  minds  of  the 
slaves  any  necessary  connection  between  religion  and  mo- 
rality. An  entire  lack  of  chastit}^  among  the  women,  and 
an  entire  lack  of  honesty  among  the  men,  did  not  prevent 
their  joining  the  church  and  becoming,  in  the  estimation  of 
their  fellow-slaves,  exemplary  Christians.  It  is  obvious  that 
if  the  white  preachers  inculcated  these  virtues,  such  preach- 
ing, when  accompanied  with  the  averment  that  slavery  was 
a  necessary  relation  between  the  blacks  and  the  whites,  must 
be  without  effect ;  for  to  the  slaves  an  absolute  condition 
of  the  system  seemed  to  be  that  the  labor  of  the  man  and 
the  person  of  the  woman  belonged  to  the  master.  No  mor- 
alist would  undertake  to  preach  honesty  to  men  who  did  not 


1  A  ragged  old  negro  whom  Olmsted  met  in  Mississippi  showed  that 
such  preaching  had  taken  root  by  discoursing  thus :  "  Rough  fare's  good 
enough  for  dis  world.  . .  .  Dis  world  ain't  nothin' ;  dis  is  hell,  dis  is  hell 
to  what's  a-comin'  arter. ...  I  reckon  de  Lord  has  'cepted  of  me,  and  I 
'specs  I  shall  be  saved,  dough  I  don't  look  much  like  it.  ...  De  Lord  am 
my  rock,  and  he  shall  not  perwail  over  me ;  I  will  lie  down  in  green  past- 
ures and  take  up  my  bed  in  hell,  yet  will  not  his  mercy  circumwent  me." 
— Cotton  Kingdom,  vol.  ii.  p.  90. 

*  Kemble,  p.  57 ;  Life  of  Frederick  Douglass,  p.  155.  A  curious  yet 
characteristic  catechism  for  slaves  was  published  in  the  Southern  Episco- 
palian, and  cited  in  the  New  York  Weekly  Tribune,  June  10th5 1854. 


Ca.IV.]  THE  HOUSE -SERVANTS  333 

own  their  labor,  nor  chastity  to  women  who  did  not  own 
their  bodies.  This  was  appreciated  by  Southern  reasoners, 
Chancellor  Harper  argued  that  unchastity  among  female 
slaves  was  not  a  vice  or  a  crime,  but  only  a  weakness ;  and 
that  theft  by  a  negro  was  not  a  crime,  but  only  a  vice.1 

It  is  easy  to  sum  up  the  intellectual  and  moral  condition 
of  the  vast  portion  of  the  slaves ;  they  were  in  a  state 
of  dismal  ignorance  and  moral  darkness.9  If  some  travel- 
lers and  novelists  have  represented  slavery  in  a  different 
light  from  that  in  which  it  is  here  presented,  it  is  because 
they  have  dwelt  upon  it  as  seen  in  the  least  painful  aspect. 
The  household  servants  were  different  in  all  respects  from 
the  field  hands.  They  were  naturally  brighter,  and  effort 
was  made  to  train  them ;  they  were  better  fed  and  clothed, 
and  their  close  contact  with  white  people,  owing  to  the  imi- 
tative faculty  of  the  race,  was  an  education  in  itself.  A  com- 
mon picture  in  literature  is  the  joyful  welcome  given  the 
master  and  mistress  on  their  return  from  a  journey  by  the 
troops  of  house-servants,  and  that  such  scenes  were  of  fre- 
quent occurrence  is  undoubted.  That  a  breach  in  the  custom 
was  unwelcome  is  well  illustrated  by  a  master  who  gave  his 
servants  a  cruel  beating  because  on  coming  home  he  was 
not  met  by  demonstrations  of  joy  and  professions  of  attach- 
ment.8 Olmsted  saw  some  of  these  welcomes  that  came  from 
the  heart ;  they  were  greetings  from  the  house-slaves ;  the 
field  hands,  however,  seemed  indifferent ;  "  barely  touched 
their  tattered  hats  and  grinned." 4  "  The  slaves  in  a  fami- 
ly," said  Henry  Clay,  "are  treated  with  all  the  kindness  that 
the  children  of  the  family  receive ;" 6  and  it  is  General  Sher- 


1  Pro-slavery  Argument,  pp.  39  and  43.  See  instance  related  by  Lyell, 
Second  Visit,  vol.  i.  p.  272. 

8  "  The  field-hand  negro  is,  on  an  average,  a  very  poor  and  very  bad 
creature.  ...  He  seems  to  be  but  an  imperfect  man,  incapable  of  taking 
care  of  himself  in  a  civilized  manner." — Cotton  Kingdom,  vol.  ii.  p.  339. 

•  Slavery  as  It  Is,  Theo.  D.  Weld,  p.  129. 

*  A  Journey  in  the  Back  Country,  Olmsted,  p.  286. 
8  Speech  on  Compromise  Measures,  Feb.  6th,  1850. 


834  THE  HOUSE -SERVANTS  [Cn.IV. 

man's  recollection  that "  the  family  servants  were  treated  as 
well  as  the  average  hired  servants  of  to-day."1  That  these 
remarks  were  in  a  measure  true  of  some  houses  in  the  South 
cannot  be  denied,  but  there  is  abundant  testimony  to  show 
that  these  statements  by  no  means  represent  the  average 
condition  of  household  slaves.'  This  is  what  we  should  ex- 
pect, for  the  relation  suggested  by  Clay  was  an  inherent  im- 
possibility, and  the  assertion  of  General  Sherman  is  untena- 
ble in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  servant  of  to-day  has  a  check 
upon  the  master  in  his  privilege  of  quitting  the  service. 

For  the  sake,  however,  of  putting  this  aspect  of  slavery 
in  its  fairest  light,  I  am  glad  to  refer  to  the  observations  of 
two  English  travellers.  Buckingham  thought  that  the  con- 
dition of  the  "  slaves  of  the  household  was  quite  as  com- 
fortable as  that  of  servants  in  the  middle  ranks  of  life  in 
England.  They  are  generally  well-fed,  well-dressed,  atten- 
tive, orderly,  respectful,  and  easy  to  be  governed,  but  more 
by  kindness  than  by  severity."8  Sir  Charles  Lyell  was  of 
the  opinion  that  the  house-slaves  had  many  advantages 
"  over  the  white  race  in  the  same  rank  of  life  in  Europe." 4 
A  witty  English  novelist,  struck  with  the  fact  that,  under 
the  system,  a  good  cook  or  an  honest  butler  could  not  be 
tempted  away  by  an  offer  of  higher  wages,  said  that  negro 
slavery  in  America  was  a  charming  domestic  institution. 

The  existence  of  mulattoes,  quadroons,  and  of  slaves  fairer 
still  than  these,  calls  attention  to  the  fact  of  the  mixture 
of  the  white  and  negro  races.  This  union  was  between 
the  white  man  and  the  negress.6  The  giving  birth  to  a 
colored  child  by  a  white  woman  was  almost  unknown  ;  the 


1  North  American  Heview,  Oct.,  1888. 

*  See  A  Journey  in  the  Back  Country,  Olmsted,  p.  288. 

*  The  Slave  States  of  America,  Buckingham,  vol.  i.  p.  131. 

*  Second  Visit,  Sir  Charles  Lyell,  vol.  i.  p.  263 ;  see  also  Homes  of  the 
New  World,  F.  Bremer,  vol.  i.  p.  277. 

*  "  The  tell-tale  faces  of  children,  glowing  with  their  master's  blood, 
but  doomed  for  their  mother's  skin  to  slavery."— Sumner's  speech  on  the 
Barbarism  of  Slavery. 


CH.  IV.]  AMALGAMATION  335 

bringing  into  the  world  of  children  fairer  than  herself  by 
the  female  slave  was  a  common  thing,  and  was  evidence  that 
the  ownership  of  her  person  by  her  master  was  not  mere- 
ly a  theoretical  right.  While  the  Southerners  frequently 
charged  that  amalgamation  of  the  two  races  was  the  aim 
of  the  Northern  abolitionists,  to  an  impartial  judge  it  was 
apparent  that  where  the  negro  was  free,  no  danger  existed 
of  a  mixture  of  blood.  The  reason  for  this  did  not  escape 
the  keen  observation  of  De  Tocqueville.  "Among  the 
Americans  of  the  Southern  States,"  he  writes,  "  nature, 
sometimes,  reasserting  her  rights,  re-establishes  for  a  mo- 
ment equality  between  the  whites  and  the  blacks.  At  the 
North,  pride  restrains  the  most  imperious  of  human  pas- 
sions. The  Northern  man  would  perhaps  consent  to  make 
the  negress  the  transient  companion  of  his  pleasure  if  the 
legislators  had  declared  that  she  could  never  aspire  to  share 
legitimately  his  bed;  but  as  she  may  legally  become  his 
wife,  he  shrinks  from  her  with  a  kind  of  horror." ' 

The  lack  of  chaste  sentiment  among  the  female  slaves 
is  exhibited  by  their  yielding  without  objection,  except  in 
isolated  cases,  to  the  passion  of  their  master.  Indeed,  the 
idea  of  the  superiority  of  the  white  race  was  so  universally 
admitted  that  the  negress  felt  only  pride  at  bearing  off- 
spring that  had  an  admixture  of  the  blood  of  the  ruling 
class.  Such  children,  on  account  of  their  greater  capacity, 
and  because  in  many  cases  the  master  would  look  after  his 
own  progeny,  were  frequently  destined  for  house-servants ; 
thus  their  lot  might  be  easier  than  their  mothers'  had  been. 
So  loose  was  the  tie  of  marriage  among  the  slaves,  that  the 
negro  husband  felt  little  or  no  displeasure  when  the  fancy 
of  the  master  chanced  to  light  upon  his  wife.  One  finds 
instances,  however,  scattered  through  the  abolition  litera- 
ture, of  the  black  resenting  these  intrusions  upon  his  fam- 


1  De  la  Democratic  en  Amerique,  De  Tocqueville,  vol.  ii.  p.  308.  It  is 
a  certain  fact  that  since  the  negroes  have  become  free,  amalgamation  has 
nearly  ceased  at  the  South. 


336  THE  MORALS  OF  SLAVERY  [Cn.  I? 

ily  by  killing  the  offending  white,  but  such  cases  are  rare. 
If,  indeed,  the  desire  to  revenge  the  injury  had  been  common, 
the  negro's  feelings  would  have  been  held  in  check  by  the 
certainty  of  punishment ;  for  when  such  murders  were  com- 
mitted, execution  was  prompt,  generally  according  to  lynch 
law,  and  the  offender  was  occasionally  burned  at  the  stake. 
The  practice  of  gentlemen  seeking  illicit  pleasure  among 
the  slaves  of  their  households  and  estates  introduced  into 
the  best  society  of  the  South  a  discordant  element  which 
one  cannot  contemplate  without  feeling  profound  pity  for 
the  suffering  of  many  noble  and  refined  women  whose  lot 
was  cast  in  a  country  where  such  a  system  prevailed.  A 
planter's  wife  is  only  "  the  chief  slave  of  a  harem,"  declared, 
in  the  bitterness  of  her  heart,  the  wife  of  a  lordly  slave- 
holder.1 "  We  Southern  ladies  are  complimented  with  the 
name  of  wives,"  said  a  sister  of  President  Madison,  "  but 
we  are  only  the  mistresses  of  seraglios." a  Harriet  Marti- 
neau  wrote  that  in  the  Southwestern  States  "most  heart- 
rending disclosures  were  made  to  me  by  the  ladies,  heads 
of  families,  of  the  state  of  society,  and  of  their  own  intolera- 
ble sufferings  in  it." 3  Madison  avowed  to  her  that  there 
was  great  licentiousness  on  the  Virginia  plantations,  "  and 
that  it  was  understood  that  the  female  slaves  were  to  be- 
come mothers  at  fifteen."4  It  had  become  a  proverb  and 
a  byword  that  "  the  noblest  blood  of  Virginia  runs  in  the 
veins  of  slaves."  *  Fanny  Kemble  writes  that  almost  every 
Southern  planter  admitted  one  or  several  of  his  female 
slaves  to  the  close  intimacy  of  his  bed,  and  had  a  "  family 
more  or  less  numerous  of  illegitimate  colored  children."' 
A  planter  told  Olmsted :  "  There  is  not  a  likely-looking 
black  girl  in  this  State  that  is  not  the  concubine  of  a  white 
man.  There  is  not  an  old  plantation  in  which  the  grand- 


1  Society  in  America,  Martineau,  vol.  ii.  p.  118. 

•  Goodell's  American  Slave  Code,  p.  111. 

»  Society  in  America,  vol.  i.  p.  304.  *  Ibid.,  vol.  ii.  p.  118. 

•  Goodell,  p.  84.  •  Kemble,  pp.  15  and  d8 ;  see  alflo  p,  140» 


CH.IV.]  THE  MORALS  OF  SLAVERY  337 

children  of  the  owner  are  not  whipped  in  the  field  by  his 
overseer." ' 

That  attractiveness  of  form  and  feature  which  arose  from 
the  mixture  of  bloods  increased  in  a  marked  degree  the 
selling  value  of  female  slaves.  A  number  of  cases  are  cited 
in  the  anti-slavery  books  where  comely  mulattoes  and  beau- 
tiful quadroons  were  sold  for  mistresses;  and  while  un- 
founded suspicions  might  sometimes  be  asserted  as  positive 
facts,  no  one,  knowing  the  system  of  slavery  and  under- 
standing human  nature,  can  doubt  that  many  such  trans- 
actions must  have  taken  place.  "  I  have,"  writes  General 
Sherman,  "  attended  the  auction  sales  of  slaves  in  the  ro- 
tunda of  the  St.  Louis  Hotel  [New  Orleans].  ...  I  have 
seen  young  girls  in  new  calico  dresses,  inspected  by  men- 
buyers  as  critically  as  would  be  a  horse  by  a  purchaser — 
eyes,  hair,  teeth,  limbs  and  muscles — and  have  seen  spirited 
bidding  for  a  wench  of  handsome  form  and  figure  by  men 
of  respectable  standing." a  A  letter  of  slave-dealers,  which 
was  widely  circulated  in  anti-slavery  publications,  was  a  bald 
admission  of  this  feature  of  the  traffic.  A  free  negro  wom- 
an in  New  York  interested  some  humane  people  in  the  fate 
of  her  daughter,  a  beautiful  young  quadroon  girl  who  was 
held  for  sale  by  a  firm  in  Alexandria,  Ya.  With  a  view  of 
raising  the  money  for  the  purchase  of  this  slave,  they  asked 
what  was  her  price.  The  slave-dealers  replied,  "  We  cannot 
afford  to  sell  the  girl  Emily  for  less  than  eighteen  hundred 
dollars  .  .  .  We  have  two  or  three  offers  for  Emily  from 
gentlemen  from  the  South.  She  is  said  to  be  the  finest- 
looking  woman  in  this  country." 3  Harriet  Martineau  re- 
ports a  circumstance  which  exemplifies  most  pointedly  this 
feature  of  slavery.  "A  Southern  lady,  of  fair  reputation 


1  Cotton  Kingdom,  vol.  i.  p.  308. 

1  North  American  Review,  Oct.,  1888. 

8  Letter  of  Bruin  and  Hill,  cited  in  New  York  Independent  from  the 
Cleveland  Democrat^ an.,  1850.     It  may  be  found  in  Key  to  Uncle  Tom's 
Cabin,  p.  169. 
I.— 22 


338  THE  MORALS  OF  SLAVERY  [Cn.  IV. 

for  refinement  and  cultivation,  told  a  story  of  which  a  fa- 
vorite slave,  a  very  pretty  mulatto  girl,  was  the  heroine. 
A  young  man  came  to  stay  at  her  house  and  fell  in  love 
with  the  girl.  '  She  came  to  me,'  said  the  lady,  <  for  pro- 
tection, which  I  gave  her.'  The  young  man  went  away, 
but  after  some  weeks  he  returned,  saying  he  was  so  much 
in  love  with  the  girl  that  he  could  not  live  without  her. 
' 1  pitied  the  young  man,'  concluded  the  lady,  '  so  I  sold 
the  girl  to  him  for  fifteen  hundred  dollars.' " ' 

This  phase  of  the  morals  of  slavery  may  be  best  studied 
at  New  Orleans.  The  occupation  of  this  city  by  three  dis- 
tinct nationalities  had  given  it  a  cosmopolitan  air  such  as 
was  seen  in  no  other  city  of  the  country  before  the  war. 
The  graceful  qualities  of  the  Latin  race  were  blended  with 
the  manly  virtues  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  stock.  The  city  was 
a  centre  of  wealth,  and  the  abode  of  refinement,  elegance, 
and  luxury.2  The  Spanish  and  French  mixed  their  blood 
freely  with  the  negroes,  and  the  result  at  New  Orleans  was 
the  production  of  beautiful  quadroons  and  octoroons  which 
reached  their  highest  type  in  the  female  sex.  Such  girls 
were  frequently  sent  to  Paris  to  be  educated.  They  were 
generally  healthy  in  appearance,  and  often  very  handsome ; 
they  were  remarked  for  a  graceful  and  elegant  carriage, 
and  showed  exquisite  taste  in  dress;  their  manners  were 
refined;  in  short,  they  were  accomplished  young  women 
who  would,  perhaps,  have  been  fitted  for  the  highest  society 
in  the  land,  had  it  not  been  for  the  taint  of  African  blood. 
They  could  not  marry  with  a  white  man ;  paying  the  uni- 
versal homage  to  the  superiority  of  the  Caucasian  race, 


1  Society  in  America,  vol.  ii.  p.  123. 

*  "  A.  la  Nouvelle  Orleans,  nous  avons  retrouve"  avec  plaisir  I'op6ra 
fran9ais  et  la  soci&te"  fran9aise.  Un  bal  chez  M.  Slidell  est  ce  que  j'ai  vu 
jusqu'ici  de  plus  parisien  en  Ame'rique.  Dans  trois  salons  se  pressait  un 
monde  fort  brillant.  Une  certaine  grSce  Creole  se  remarquait  chez  plu- 
sieurs  des  belles  danseuses  que  j'admirais :  le  melange  du  sang  fran9ais 
et  du  sang  anglo-saxon  avait  produit  de  tres-beaux  r6sultats." — Prome- 
nade en  Ame'rique,  J.  J.  Ampere,  tome  ii.  p.  153. 


CH.  IV.]  THE  MORALS  OF  SLAVERY  339 

they  would  not  marry  a  man  who  had  negro  blood  in 
his  veins.  They  became,  therefore,  the  mistresses  of  the 
wealthy  curled  darlings  of  New  Orleans.  These  relations 
were  not  entered  into  blindly;  but  were  the  result  of  system- 
atic arrangement.  The  young  man  who  fancied  the  young 
woman  must  have  the  consent  of  her  mother,  who  was  a 
free  person,  and  who  in  youth  had  been  placed  in  like  man- 
ner. He  must  have  means  to  provide  for  the  girl  and  her 
children,  and  must  agree  to  settle  a  certain  amount  on  her 
when  he  should  leave  her  and  take  to  himself  a  lawful 
wife.  All  the  conditions  being  satisfactory,  the  pair  lived 
together  in  an  establishment  as  husband  and  wife.  The 
young  man  led  a  dual  life,  frequenting  the  quadroon  society 
with  his  mistress,  and  moving  likewise  in  the  best  society 
of  New  Orleans  with  his  parents  and  friends.  Such  con- 
nections lasted  sometimes  for  life,  but  more  frequently  the 
marriage  of  the  gentlemen  broke  them  off.  The  girls  that 
resulted  from  the  union  were  sometimes  sent  permanently 
abroad,  where  their  color  did  not  prevent  them  from  lead- 
ing reputable  lives ;  but  as  a  general  rule  they  continued  in 
the  same  rank  of  life  as  their  mothers,  and  were  destined 
to  a  like  fate.1 

That  the  evil  here  referred  to  prevailed  throughout  the 
South  to  any  great  extent  was  sometimes  denied.2  The  de- 
fenders of  Southern  institutions  could  point  to  the  observa- 
tions of  two  unprejudiced  travellers  to  bear  them  out  in  this 
denial.  De  Tocqueville  testified  that  mulattoes  were  far  from 
numerous  in  the  United  States ; 3  and  it  is  true  that  the 
proportion  of  them  was  much  smaller  than  in  French,  Span- 
ish, or  Portuguese  colonies  where  slavery  had  existed  or  still 
continued  in  operation.  Sir  Charles  Lyell  was  told  that 
mulattoes  did  not  constitute  more  than  two  and  one-half  per 


1  For  a  complete  account  of  this  peculiar  state  of  society,  see  Cotton 
Kingdom,  vol.  i.  p.  302,  and  Society  in  America,  vol.  ii.  p.  116. 
8  See  denial  of  Senator  Hammond,  Pro-slavery  Argument,  p.  118. 
3  De  la  Democratic  en  Amerique,  vol.  ii.  p.  331. 


340  THE  MULATTOES  [CH.  IV. 

cent,  of  the  population,  which  he  was  quite  ready  to  believe, 
and  from  this  he  drew  a  conclusion  very  favorable  to  the 
morals  of  the  Southern  States.  He  writes  :  "  If  the  statis- 
tics of  the  illegitimate  children  of  the  whites  born  here 
could  be  compared  with  those  in  Great  Britain,  it  might 
lead  to  conclusions  by  no  means  favorable  to  the  free  coun- 
try. Here  (i.  e.,  in  the  Southern  States)  there  is  no  possi- 
bility of  concealment ;  the  color  of  the  child  stamps  upon 
him  the  mark  of  bastardy,  and  transmits  it  to  great-grand- 
children born  in  lawful  wedlock ;  whereas,  if  in  Europe  there 
was  some  mark  or  indelible  stain  betraying  all  the  delin- 
quencies and  frailties,  not  only  of  parents,  but  of  ancestors 
for  three  or  four  generations  back,  what  unexpected  dis- 
closures should  we  not  witness !"  * 

De  Tocqueville  and  Lyell,  however,  wrote  before  any 
count  was  taken  of  mulattoes  in  our  decennial  census.9 
Such  an  enumeration  was  first  made  in  1850,  and  a  compar- 
ison of  the  figures  of  1850  and  1860  shows  that  the  mixture 
of  blood  was  greater  than  De  Tocqueville  and  Lyell  imag- 
ined, while  yet  it  did  not  reach  the  proportions  that  might 
be  supposed  from  many  statements  occurring  in  the  aboli- 
tion literature.  It  must  be  understood  that,  as  the  mulatto 
is  the  product  of  a  union  between  the  white  and  the  black, 
the  term,  as  used  in  the  census  reports,  was  intended  to  com- 
prise those  having  a  mixture  of  white  blood  from  one-half 
to  seven-eighths,  but  not  designed  to  cover  the  issue  of  con- 
nections between  mulattoes  and  blacks  where  there  would 
be  a  preponderance  of  African  blood.  In  the  slave  States, 
in  1850,  ten  per  cent,  of  the  colored  people  were  mulattoes, 
and  the  proportion  was  twelve  per  cent,  in  I860.8  The  su- 


1  Second  Visit  to  the  United  States,  vol.  i.  p.  271. 
3  De  Tocqueville  travelled  in  this  country  in  1831-33,  and  Lyell  made 
his  second  visit  in  1845-46. 

Proportion. 
1350.  1860.  1850.  1860. 

•Blacks 3,093,605       3,697,274      89.86      87.70 

Mulattoes 348,895         518,360       10.14      12.80 

Total  colored  population,  3,442,500      4,215,634 


CH.IV.]  THE  MULATTOES  341 

perintendent  of  the  census  made  a  fair  calculation  from  the 
census  returns  that  the  total  births  of  mulattoes  in  the 
whole  country  from  1850  to  1860  were  273,000.  More  than 
six-sevenths  of  these  must  have  been  born  in  the  South.  Of 
every  hundred  births  of  colored  infants  in  the  United  States, 
seventeen  were  mulattoes,  of  whom  fifteen  were  born  in  the 
slave  States ;  these  must  have  been,  for  the  most  part,  the 
issue  of  white  men  and  female  slaves.1 

Among  the  Southern  apologists  for  slavery  were  men  of 
great  candor,  who  admitted  the  evil  which  we  have  consid- 
ered. Such  were  Chancellor  Harper  and  W.  Gilmore  Simms ; 
and  they  excused  it  on  the  ground  that,  as  irregular  sexual 
indulgence  had  contributed  to  the  misery  and  degradation 
of  man  in  all  nations,  ages,  and  under  all  religions,  its  exist- 
ence at  the  South  was  not  due  to  slavery,  but  proceeded 
from  man's  unbridled  passion,  whose  effects  were  equally 
baneful  at  the  North  and  in  Europe.8  When  Seward  was 


1  The  historian  must  be  careful  not  to  make  any  radical  deductions 
from  these  census  figures.     The  count  of  mulattoes  was  made  in  1850, 
1860,  and  1870.     The  figures  for  1870  show  that  in  the  old  slave  States 
the  number  of  mulattoes  had  decreased  from  1860.     As  the  war  had  in- 
tervened, this  is  not  satisfactory  evidence  that  the  mixing  of  races  had 
decreased  with  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves ;  but  that  fact  is  so  uni- 
versally acknowledged  that  no  statistics  are  needed  to  sustain  it.     Why 
the  count  of  the  mulattoes  was  abandoned  in  1880  is  explained  by  a  let- 
ter of  Francis  A.  Walker,  President  of  the  Massachusetts  Institute  of 
Technology,  who  was  superintendent  of  the  census  for  1870  and  1880. 
He  writes,  Dec.  20th,  1889 :  "  The  reason  for  the  omission  of  the  class 
mulatto  from  the  census  of  1880  was  found  in  the  conviction  that  the  re- 
turns had  always  been  inaccurate  in  this  particular,  and  were  becoming 
increasingly  so  as  each  successive  generation  produced  a  larger  admixt- 
ure of  blood.     Not  one  person  in  ten  makes  the  faintest  discrimination 
between  three  negroes  who  are  respectively  five-eighths,  three-fourths, 
and  seven-eighths  black.     Most  persons  fail  to  make  the  distinction  be- 
tween the  whole  and  the  three-fourths  of  color.     Every  ten  years  the  ad- 
mixture becomes  more  complicated,  while  there  is  even  less  interest  than 
formerly  in  observing  and  preserving  the  distinctions- resulting." 

2  See  Pro-slavery  Argument,  pp.  40  and  230.     See  also,  in  this  connec- 
tion, Lecky's  History  of  Morals,  vol.  ii.  p.  282. 


342  THE   MORALS  OF  SLAVERY  [On.  IV. 

at  Richmond  he  had  an  interview  with  the  governor  of  Vir- 
ginia, in  which  the  latter  spoke  of  the  danger  of  amal- 
gamation at  the  North  ;  "  and  when,"  as  Seward  himself  re- 
ports the  conversation,  "  I  told  him  that  commerce  of  the 
races  was  less  frequent  there  than  in  the  South,  he  forgot 
the  question  and  extolled  that  commerce  as  freeing  the 
white  race  from  habits  of  licentiousness."  '  The  discussion 
of  this  defence  is  the  part  of  the  moralist,  not  of  the  histo- 
rian. Our  concern  is  simply  with  the  facts.  The  most 
scathing  review  of  this  practice  may  be  found  in  Harriet 
Martineau's  chapter  on  the  "  Morals  of  Slavery,"  which  oc- 
curs in  "  Society  in  America."  Some  notion  of  this  part  of 
her  book  may  be  had  when  I  mention  that  all  the  refer- 
ences but  one  which  have  been  made  to  it  in  the  present 
consideration  of  the  matter  were  drawn  from  this  chapter.2 
The  treatise  is  admirably  written.  It  is  not  that  of  a  one- 
sided agitator  who  searches  only  for  facts  which  will  square 
with  his  theory,  but  it  is  the  work  of  a  student  of  social 
science  who  has  gathered  facts  with  care,  and  only  drawn 
legitimate  deductions.  It  was  this  chapter  that  brought 
down  on  the  author  that  indiscriminate  abuse  in  which  the 
critics  vied  with  one  another  in  making  ungenerous  allu- 
sions to  her  infirmity  of  deafness,  and  insulting  references 
to  her  maidenhood ;  for  it  was  an  offence  to  put  the  finger 
upon  the  plague-spot. 

One  of  the  authoritative  apologists  of  slavery  admits  that 
Miss  Martineau  was  correct.  The  chapter  on  "  Morals  of 
Slavery,"  writes  W.  Gilmore  Simms,  "is  painful  because  it  is 
full  of  truth.  ...  It  gives  a  collection  of  statements,  which 
are,  no  doubt,  in  too  many  cases  founded  upon  facts,  of  the 
illicit  and  foul  conduct  of  some  among  us  who  make  their 
slaves  the  victims  and  the  instruments  alike  of  the  most 
licentious  passions.  .  .  .  We  do  not  quarrel  with  Miss  Mar- 


1  Life  of  W.  H.  Seward,  vol.  i.  p.  777. 

9  The  one  on  p.  336,  to  vol.  i. ;  this  chapter  occurs  in  voL  iL 


CH.IV.]  THE  MORALS  OF  SLAVERY  343 

tineau  for  this  chapter.  The  truth — though  it  is  not  all 
truth — is  quite  enough  to  sustain  her  and  it." ' 

The  child  is  father  of  the  man.  What  effect  had  the 
institution  of  slavery  on  the  bringing  -  up  of  children  ? 
One  aspect  is  best  described  by  Jefferson.  "The  whole 
commerce  between  master  and  slave,"  he  writes,  "  is  a  per- 
petual exercise  of  the  most  boisterous  passions,  the  most 
unremitting  despotism  on'the  one  part  and  degrading  sub- 
missions on  the  other.  Our  children  see  this  and  learn  to 
imitate  it.  ...  The  parent  storms,  the  child  looks  on,  catches 
the  lineaments  of  wrath,  puts  on  the  same  airs  in  the  circle 
of  smaller  slaves,  gives  a  loose  to  the  worst  of  passions, 
and  thus  nursed,  educated,  and  daily  exercised  in  tyranny, 
cannot  but  be  stamped  by  it  with  odious  peculiarities."3 
"  Everybody  in  the  South,"  wrote  Fred.  Douglass,  "  seemed 
to  want  the  privilege  of  whipping  somebody  else." 3 

The  close  and  habitual  association  of  children  with  slaves 
was  unfortunate  on  account  of  the  lascivious  imagination 
and  gross  talk  of  the  negroes.  It  was  a  companionship 
mutually  agreeable,  but  especially  dangerous ;  for,  as  chas- 
tity was  not  a  restraint  upon  the  blacks,  their  conversation 
lacked  decency.  A  Southern  merchant  told  Olmsted  that 
he  begged  his  brother,  who  was  a  planter,  to  send  his  chil- 
dren North  to  school,  for  "  he  might  as  well  have  them  ed- 
ucated in  a  brothel  as  in  the  way  they  were  growing  up."  * 
Fortunately,  the  custom  prevailed  for  wealthy  people  at  the 
South  to  send  their  daughters  and  sons  away  to  school  and 
to  college,  and  they  generally  went  to  the  North.  Girls 
seem  to  have  gone  through  this  corruption  scatheless,  but 
boys  suffered  from  the  early  contact  with  licentiousness, 
both  physically  and  morally.6 


1  Pro-slavery  Argument,  p.  228. 

1  Notes  on  Virginia,  Works,  vol.  viii.  p.  403.  '  Life,  p.  31. 

4  Cotton  Kingdom,  vol.  ii.  p.  230. 

•  See  ibid.,  vol.  i.  p.  222 ;  vol.  ii.  p.  229 ;  Martineau's  chapter  on  Morals 
of  Slavery,  p.  128. 


344  THE  POOR  WHITES  [CH.IV 

I  have  spoken  of  the  effect  of  slavery  on  the  slaves  and 
slave-holders,  but  there  was  another  large  class  in  the  South 
that  must  be  considered.  The  poor  whites  were  free;  they 
had  the  political  privileges  of  the  planters,  but  their  mate- 
rial want  was  almost  as  bad,  and  their  lack  of  education 
almost  as  marked  as  that  of  the  negroes.  Yet  they  asserted 
the  aristocracy  of  color  more  arrogantly  than  did  the  rich ; 
it  was  their  one  claim  to  superiority,  and  they  hugged  closely 
the  race  distinction.  Driven  off  the  fertile  lands  by  the  en- 
croachments of  the  planter,  or  prevented  from  occupying 
the  virgin  soil  by  the  outbidding  of  the  wealthy,  they  farmed 
the  worn-out  lands  and  gained  a  miserable  and  precarious 
subsistence.  Compared  with  laborers  on  the  farms  or  in 
the  workshops  of  the  North,  they  were  in  material  things 
abjectly  poor;  intellectually  they  were  utterly  ignorant; 
morally  their  condition  was  one  of  grovelling  baseness.1 
Nor  did  this  proceed  entirely  from  the  fact  that  they  were 
forced  to  work  the  barren,  unproductive  lands.  Olmsted 
drew  an  instructive  comparison  between  the  poor  whites  of 
Georgia  and  the  inhabitants  of  Cape  Cod.  In  all  New  Eng- 
land the  sterility  of  the  soil  of  the  cape  was  a  proverb ;  yet 
this  careful  observer  declared  that  "  there  is  hardly  a  poor 
woman's  cow  on  the  cape  that  is  not  better  housed  and 
more  comfortably  provided  for  than  a  majority  of  the  white 
people  of  Georgia."  He  has  shrewdly  discerned  the  idiosyn- 
crasies common  to  the  people  of  Cape  Cod  and  the  "  sand- 
hillers  "  and  "  crackers  "  of  Georgia.  "  In  both,"  he  writes, 
"  there  is  frankness,  boldness,  and  simplicity ;  but  in  the  one 
it  is  associated  with  intelligence,  discretion,  and  an  expansion 
of  the  mind,  resulting  from  considerable  education ;  in  the 
other,  with  ignorance,  improvidence,  laziness,  and  the  preju- 
dices of  narrow  minds." a 


1  For  the  contrast  of  illiteracy  and  common  intelligence  North  and 
South,  see  Cotton  Kingdom,  vol.  ii.  p.  381. 

*  Olmsted's  Seaboard  Slave  States,  p.  538.  The  difference  is  thoroughly 
discussed,  and  the  inducements  to  a  seafaring  and  fishing  life  are  considered 


CH.  IV.]          THE  SOUTHERN  OLIGARCHY  345 

The  poor  whites  of  the  South  looked  on  the  prosperity 
of  the  slave-holding  lord  with  rank  and  sullen  envy;  his 
trappings  contrasted  painfully  with  their  want  of  comforts, 
yet  he  knew  so  well  how  to  play  upon  their  contempt  for 
the  negro,  and  to  make  it  appear  that  his  and  their  inter- 
ests were  identical,  that  when  election-day  came  the  whites, 
who  were  without  money  and  without  slaves,  did  the  bid- 
ding of  the  lord  of  the  plantation.  "When  Southern  inter- 
ests were  in  danger,  it  was  the  poor  whites  who  voted  for 
their  preservation.  The  slave-holders,  and  the  members  of 
that  society  which  clustered  round  them,  took  the  offices. 
It  was  extremely  rare  that  a  man  who  had  ever  labored 
with  his  hands  was  sent  to  Congress  from  the  South,  or 
chosen  to  one  of  the  prominent  positions  in  the  State. 

The  political  system  of  the  South  was  an  oligarchy  under 
the  republican  form.  The  slave-holders  were  in  a  very  dis- 
proportionate minority  in  every  State.1  "Two  hundred 
thousand  men  with  pure  white  skins  in  South  Carolina,"  said 
Broderick  to  the  senators,  "are  now  degraded  and  despised 
by  thirty  thousand  aristocratic  slave-holders." a  The  govern- 
or of  South  Carolina  was  in  favor  of  doing  something  to 
elevate  their  poor,  but  feared  they  were  "  hopelessly  doomed 
to  ignorance,  poverty,  and  crime."3  In  1850  there  were 
34Y,525  slave-holders,4  who  with  their  families  may  have 
numbered  two  millions.5  The  total  white  population  of  the 
slave  States  was  6,125,000,  so  that  less  than  one-third  of 
the  white  people  of  the  South  could  possibly  have  derived 
any  benefit  from  the  institution  of  slavery.  In  other  words, 
this  imperial  domain,  covering  more  square  miles  than  there 
were  in  the  free  States,  was  given  up  to  two  million  people ; 

1  Seward's  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  74. 

'  March  22d,  1858,  Congressional  Globe,  vol.  xxxvii.  p.  193. 

*  Olmsted's  Seaboard  Slave  States,  p.  505. 

*  Census  Report  for  1850.     See  Life  of  Garrison,  vol.  iii.  p.  272. 

*  The  superintendent  of  the  census ;  see  Seward's  speech,  Oct.,  1855, 
Works,  vol.  iv.  p.  237;  Henry  Wilson's  speech,  July  2d,  1856,  Congressional 
Globe,  vol.  xxxiii.  p.  793. 


346  THE   SOUTHERN  OLIGARCHY  [CH.  IV 

and  more  than  seven  millions,  bond  and  free,1  labored  for 
them  or  were  subservient  to  their  interests.  Yet  these  fig- 
ures by  no  means  represent  the  exclusive  character  of  the 
slave-holding  oligarchy.  In  the  enumeration  of  slave-hold- 
ers were  included  many  men  from  the  laboring  class  who 
by  unusual  industry  or  economy  had  become  possessed  of 
one  slave  or  perhaps  more,  but  who  politically  and  socially 
belonged  only  to  the  class  from  which  they  had  sprung.8 
Of  the  large  planters  owning  more  than  fifty  slaves,  whose 
elegance,  luxury,  and  hospitality  are  recited  in  tales  of  trav- 
ellers, over  whose  estates  and  lives  has  shone  the  lustre  of 
romance  and  poetry,  there  were  less  than  eight  thousand.' 
They  were  the  true  centre  of  the  oligarchy.  Around  them 
clustered  the  few  educated  people  of  the  country,  also  the 
best  society  of  the  cities,  which  was  composed  of  merchants, 
doctors,  lawyers,  and  politicians,  and  was  seen  to  the  best 
advantage  in  New  Orleans,  Charleston,  and  Richmond.  In- 
cluding all  these,  the  total  number  must  have  been  small,  but 
it  was  for  them  that  slavery  existed.  "What  has  been  here 
adduced  is  sufficient  to  show  that  slavery  was  certainly  not 
for  the  advantage  of  the  negro.  No  one  seriously  main- 
tained that  there  were  any  benefits  in  the  system  for  the 
poor  whites ;  since  it  degraded  labor,  and  therefore  degraded 
the  white  man  who  had  to  work  with  his  hands.4  It  is  one 
of  the  striking  facts  of  our  history  that  these  despised  peo- 
ple fought  bravely  and  endured  much  for  a  cause  adverse  to 


1  The  total  population  of  the  slave  States  for  1850  was  9,569,540— com- 
posed of  whites,  free  colored,  and  slaves. 

a  The  holders  of  one  slave  were  68,820 ;  of  more  than  one  and  less 
than  five,  105,683  —  more  than  half  of  the  whole  number,  which  was 
847,525. 

*  De  Bow's  U.  S.  Census  Report ;  Olmsted's  Cotton  Kingdom,  vol.  i. 
p.  20. 

4  For  a  full  account  of  the  poor  whites,  see  Olmsted's  Seaboard  Slave 
States,  pp.  505,  508,  514 ;  Kemble,  pp.  76  and  146 ;  Cotton  Kingdom,  vol. 
L  p.  22;  Key  to  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin,  p.  185;  Helper's  Impending  Crisis, 
passim. 


CH.IV.]  THE  SOUTHERN  ARISTOCRACY  347 

their  own  interests,  following  Lee  and  Stonewall  Jackson 
with  a  devotion  that  called  to  mind  the  deeds  of  a  more 
heroic  age. 

It  was  then  for  a  small  aristocracy  that  slavery  continued 
to  be,  and  it  is  among  them  that  we  must  look  for  its  ad- 
vantages. An  apologist  of  the  institution,  who  was  himself 
one  of  the  select  few,  maintained  that  by  the  existence  of 
slavery  they  had  greater  leisure  for  intellectual  pursuits  and 
better  means  of  attaining  a  liberal  education.  "  It  is  better," 
he  declares,  "  that  a  part  [of  the  community]  should  be  ful- 
ly and  highly  cultivated,  and  the  rest  utterly  ignorant." l 

The  South  did,  indeed,  produce  good  lawyers  and  able 
politicians.  Their  training  was  excellent.  The  sons  of  the 
wealthy  almost  always  went  to  college,  and  there  they  be- 
gan to  acquire  the  knack  at  public  speaking  which  seemed 
natural  to  the  Southerner.  The  political  life  of  their  State 
was  early  opened  to  them,  and  by  the  time  the  promising 
young  men  were  sent  to  Congress  they  had  learned  experi- 
ence and  adroitness  in  public  affairs.  If  they  made  their 
mark  in  the  national  House  or  the  Senate,  they  were  kept 
there,  and  each  year  added  to  their  usefulness  and  influ- 
ence.' The  aspirants  for  political  honors  being  almost 
wholly  from  the  small  privileged  class,  it  was  not  difficult 
to  provide  places  for  those  eminently  fitted.  Moreover,  the 
men  who  wielded  the  power  were  convinced  that  continu- 


1  Chancellor  Harper,  Pro-slavery  Argument,  p.  35.  "  In  all  social  sys- 
tems there  must  be  a  class  to  do  the  menial  duties,  to  perform  the  drudg- 
ery of  life ;  that  is,  a  class  requiring  but  a  low  order  of  intellect  and  but 
little  skill.  Its  requisites  are  vigor,  docility,  fidelity.  Such  a  class  you 
must  have,  or  you  would  not  have  that  other  class  which  leads  progress, 
civilization,  and  refinement.  It  constitutes  the  very  mud-sill  of  society 
and  of  political  government ;  and  you  might  as  well  attempt  to  build  a 
house  in  the  air  as  to  build  either  the  one  or  the  other  except  on  this 
mud-sill.  Fortunately  for  the  South,  she  found  a  race  adapted  to  that 
purpose  to  her  hand." — Senator  Hammond,  of  South  Carolina,  Senate, 
March  4th,  1858,  Speeches  and  Letters,  p.  318. 

*  This  custom  is  well  described  in  Lowell's  Political  Essays,  p.  135. 


348  THE  SOUTH  IN  POLITICS  [On.  IV. 

ance  in  office  was  the  proper  reward  of  those  who  had 
shown  capacity  and  honesty.  The  absurd  practice  which 
prevailed  at  the  North,  of  rotating  their  representatives  in 
the  lower  house  in  order  to  make  room  for  as  many  as  pos- 
sible of  those  who  had  political  claims,  never  gained  foot- 
hold in  the  South.  This  was,  indeed,  one  reason  why  the 
South  won  advantages  over  the  North,  in  spite  of  its  infe- 
rior numerical  strength.1 

It  is  not  surprising  that  the  Southerners  shone  in  the 
political  sphere.  Their  intellect  tended  naturally  to  public 
affairs ;  they  had  the  talent  and  leisure  for  politics  which  a 
landed  aristocracy  is  apt  to  have  under  a  representative 
government;  and  when  the  slavery  question  assumed  im- 
portance at  Washington,  their  concern  for  shaping  the 
course  of  national  legislation  became  a  passion,  and  seemed 
necessary  for  the  preservation  of  their  order.  But  it  was 
only  in  law  and  politics  that  the  South  was  eminent.  She 
did  not  give  birth  to  a  poet,  nor  to  a  philosopher  after  Jef- 
ferson, and  his  philosophy  she  rejected.  She  could  lay  claim 
only  to  an  occasional  scientist,  but  to  no  great  historian ; 
none  of  her  novelists  or  essayists  who  wrote  before  the  war 
has  the  next  generation  cared  to  read.9  Whoever,  thinking 
of  the  opportunities  for  culture  in  the  ancient  world  given 
by  the  existence  of  slavery,  seeks  in  the  Southern  com- 
munity a  trace  even  of  that  intellectual  and  artistic  devel- 
opment which  was  the  glory  of  Athens,  will  look  in  vain. 
Had  the  other  causes  existed,  the  sparse  settlements  of  the 
South,  the  lack  of  a  compact  social  body,3  made  utterly  im- 


1  This  superiority  is  boastfully  asserted  in  De  Bow's  Resources,  vol.  iii. 
p.  63. 

8  A  partial  exception  must  be  made  of  W.  Gilmore  Simms.  A  new  edi- 
tion of  his  books  was  published  in  1882,  and  his  revolutionary  tales  are 
still  read  by  schoolboys,  although  to  nothing  like  the  extent  that  Coo- 
per's novels  are  read.  "  The  South  has  no  literature,"  said  Rufus  Choate, 
Recollections,  Parker,  p.  265. 

3  In  1852,  Mrs.  Davis  rejoiced  in  "  our  mail  twice  a  week."  Memoir  of 
Jefferson  Davis,  vol.  i.  p.  475. 


CH.IV.J  LACK  OF  COMFORT  349 

possible  such  results  as  mark  Grecian  civilization.  The 
physical  and  economic  conditions  of  the  South  presented 
insuperable  obstacles  to  any  full  development  of  uni- 
versity education.  While  efforts  were  made  to  promote 
the  establishment  of  colleges,  the  higher  fields  of  scien- 
tific and  literary  research  were  not  cultivated  with  emi- 
nent success;  for  the  true  scientific  spirit  could  never 
have  free  play  in  a  community  where  one  subject  of  in- 
vestigation of  all-pervading  influence  must  remain  a  closed 
book. 

When  one  thinks  of  the  varied  forms  under  which  the 
intellect  of  New  England  displayed  itself,  and  remembers 
the  brilliant  achievements  there  in  the  mind's  domain 
which  illumine  the  generation  before  the  war,  he  cannot 
but  feel  that  the  prominence  of  the  South  in  politics,  after 
the  great  Virginia  statesman  had  left  the  stage,  was  held 
at  too  great  cost,  if  it  was  maintained  at  the  sacrifice 
of  a  many-sided  development  such  as  took  place  at  the 
North. 

The  great  majority  of  the  slave-holders  lacked  even  ordi- 
nary culture.  Nothing  illustrates  this  better  than  the  expe- 
rience of  Olmsted  while  on  a  horseback  journey  of  three 
months,  from  the  banks  of  the  Mississippi  to  the  banks  of 
the  James.  In  the  rural  districts  of  that  country  there 
were  no  inns.  The  traveller's  stopping-places  for  the  night 
were  the  houses  of  the  farmers  along  his  route,  many  of 
whom  made  it  a  practice  to  accommodate  strangers,  and 
were  willing  to  accept  in  payment  for  their  trouble  the 
price  which  would  have  been  demanded  by  an  inn -keeper. 
A  majority  of  Olmsted's  hosts  in  this  journey  were  slave- 
holders, and  a  considerable  proportion  cotton-planters.  He 
observed  that  certain  symbols  of  civilization  were  wanting. 
"  From  the  banks  of  the  Mississippi  to  the  banks  of  the 
James,"  he  writes,  "  I  did  not  (that  I  remember)  see,  except 
perhaps  in  one  or  two  towns,  a  thermometer,  nor  a  book  of 
Shakespeare,  nor  a  piano-forte  or  sheet  of  music,  nor  the 
light  of  a  Carcel  or  other  good  centre-table  or  reading  lamp, 


350  LACK   OF  SCHOOLS  [Cn.IV. 

nor  an  engraving  or  copy  of  any  kind  of  a  work  of  art  of 
the  slightest  merit.'" 

The  lack  of  schools  was  painfully  apparent.  The  defi- 
ciency in  the  rudiments  of  education  among  the  poor  whites 
and  smaller  slave-holders  was  recognized,  and  attracted  at- 
tention from  the  Southern  newspapers,  and  occasionally  from 
those  high  in  office.  Much  vain  declamation  resulted,  but 
no  practical  action.  Indeed,  the  situation  was  one  of  diffi- 
culty. To  plant  schools  in  a  sparsely  settled  country,  among 
a  people  who  have  not  the  desire  of  learning  and  who  do 
not  appreciate  its  value,  requires  energy,  and  this  energy 
was  lacking.  Moreover,  there  must  have  been  among  the 
slave  -  holding  lords  a  secret  satisfaction  that  the  poor 
whites  were  content  to  remain  in  ignorance;8  for  in  the 
decade  before  the  war  great  objections  were  made  to  school- 
books  prepared  and  published  at  the  North,  and  yet  there 
were  no  others.  In  the  beginning  of  the  abolitionist  agi- 
tation, Duff  Green,  perceiving  that  the  benefits  of  slavery 


1  Cotton  Kingdom,  vol.  ii.  p.  285.  This  whole  chapter, "  The  Condition 
and  Character  of  the  Privileged  Classes  of  the  South,"  should  be  read 
by  every  one  who  is  interested  in  the  social  state  of  that  section  before 
the  war.  See  also  Despotism  in  America,  Hildreth,  p.  147. 

Lieber  wrote  from  Columbia  to  Hillard,  May,  1851 :  "Every  son  of  a 
fool  here  is  a  great  statesman,  meditating  on  the  relations  of  State  sov- 
ereignty to  the  United  States  government;  but  as  to  roads,  common 
schools,  glass  in  the  windows,  food  besides  salt  meat,  as  to  cheerily  join- 
ing in  the  general  chorus  of  progress,  what  is  that  for  Don  Ranudo  de 
Colobrados,  of  South  Carolina — out  at  elbows,  to  be  sure ;  but  then,  what 
of  that  ?"— Life  and  Letters,  p.  254. 

3  "  We  imagine  that  the  propriety  of  shooting  a  Yankee  schoolmaster, 
when  caught  tampering  with  our  slaves,  has  never  been  questioned  by 
any  intelligent  Southern  man.  This  we  take  to  be  the  unwritten  law  of 
the  South.  .  .  .  Let  all  Yankee  schoolmasters  who  purpose  invading  the 
South,  endowed  with  a  strong  nasal  twang,  a  long  Scriptural  name,  and 
Webster's  lexicographic  book  of  abominations,  seek  some  more  congenial 
land,  where  their  lives  will  be  more  secure  than  in  *  the  vile  and  homi- 
cidal slave  States.'  " — Richmond  Examiner,  1854,  cited  in  a  pamphlet 
entitled  A  Bake-pan  for  Doughfaces,  published  at  Burlington,  Vt.,  by  C. 
Goodrich. 


CH.IV.]  CRITICISM  OF  NORTHERN  SCHOOL-BOOKS  351 

ought  to  be  taught  to  the  young,  obtained  a  charter  from 
South  Carolina  for  a  Southern  Literary  Company,  whose 
object  was  to  print  school-books  adapted  to  a  slave-hold- 
ing community;1  but  this  company  had  apparently  not 
achieved  its  purpose,  for  in  De  Bow's  Review^  in  1855,  there 
is  a  complaint  that  "  our  text-books  are  abolition  books." 
The  chapter  on  slavery  in  Wayland's  Moral  Science  "was 
heretical  and  unscriptural."  We  are  using  "  abolition 
geographies,  readers,  and  histories,"  which  overrun  "  with 
all  sorts  of  slanders,  caricatures,  and  blood-thirsty  senti- 
ments." "  Appletons'  Complete  Guide  of  the  World "  is 
"an  elegant  and  comprehensive  volume,"  but  contains  "hid- 
den lessons  of  the  most  fiendish  and  murderous  character 
that  enraged  fanaticism  could  conceive  or  indite."  "  This 
book  and  many  other  Northern  school-books  scattered  over 
the  country  come  within  the  range  of  the  statutes  of  this 
State  [Louisiana],  which  provide  for  the  imprisonment  for 
life  or  the  infliction  of  the  penalty  of  death  upon  any  per- 
son who  shall  '  publish  or  distribute '  such  works  ;  and  were 
I  a  citizen  of  New  Orleans,"  adds  the  writer,  "  this  work 
should  not  escape  the  attention  of  the  grand  jury."2  A 
year  later,  a  writer  in  the  same  review3  maintains  that "  our 
school-books,  especially,  should  be  written,  prepared,  and 
published  by  Southern  men ;"  and  he  inveighs  against  the 
readers  and  speakers  used  in  the  schools,  and  gives  a  list  of 
those  which  are  objectionable.  One  of  them  was  the  "  Co- 
lumbian Orator,"  and  it  is  interesting  to  know  that  this  was 
the  first  book  which  the  slave,  Frederick  Douglass,  bought. 
In  it  were  speeches  of  Chatham,  Sheridan,  and  Fox,  and  in 
reading  and  pondering  these  speeches  the  light  broke  in 
upon  his  mind,  showing  him  that  he  was  a  victim  of  oppres- 
sion, and  that,  if  what  they  said  about  the  rights  of  man 
was  true,  he  ought  not  to  be  a  slave.4  The  writer  in  the 


1  Life  of  Garrison,  vol.  ii.  p.  79.         a  Cotton  Kingdom,  vol.  ii.  p.  358 
»  De  Bow's  Review,  vol.  xx.  p.  69,  Jan.,  1856. 
*  Life  of  Douglass,  p.  75. 


352  CRITICISM   OF  NORTHERN  LITERATURE  [Cn.  IV. 

Review  complained  that  these  books  contained  poems  of 
Cowper  and  speeches  of  Webster  which  Southern  children 
should  not  read,  and  he  was  certain  that  if  parents  knew 
their  whole  contents  "  they  would  demand  expurgated  edi- 
tions for  the  use  of  their  children."  All  schoolboys  know 
that  the  kind  of  books  complained  of  contain,  for  the  most 
part,  the  choice  selections  of  English  literature — works  that 
have  survived  owing  to  their  elevation  of  thought  and 
beauty  of  expression.  Such  attacks  were  a  condemnation 
of  literature  itself,  for  from  Homer  down  the  master-spirits 
of  many  ages  have  reprobated  slavery. 

History,  as  well  as  literature,  needed  expurgation  before 
it  was  adapted  to  the  instruction  of  Southern  youth.  Peter 
Parley's  "  Pictorial  History  of  the  United  States  "  was  com- 
plained of,  because  the  author,  although  a  conservative 
Whig  and  far  from  being  an  abolitionist,  deemed  it  neces- 
sary, in  the  course  of  his  narrative,  to  mention  slavery,  the 
attempts  at  colonization,  and  the  zeal  with  which  some  peo- 
ple labored  "in  behalf  of  immediate  and  universal  emanci- 
pation." ' 

It  was  likewise  necessary  to  prepare  the  historical  reading 
of  adults  with  care.  In  an  editorial  notice  in  De  Bow's 
Review  of  the  current  number  of  Harpers  Magazine,  which, 
had  a  large  circulation  at  the  South,  it  was  suggested  that 
the  notice  of  the  Life  of  Toussaint  "  had  been  better  left 
out,  so  far  as  the  South  is  concerned."  2  To  what  absurdi- 
ties did  this  people  come  on  account  of  their  peculiar  insti- 
tution! Toussaint,  as  a  brilliant  historian  of  our  day  has 
told  us,  exercised  on  our  history  "  an  influence  as  decisive 
as  that  of  any  European  ruler."  3  He  was,  alike  with  Na- 
poleon and  Jefferson,  one  of  the  important  links  of  that 
historical  chain  which  secured  for  us  Louisiana  and  New 
Orleans. 

It  is  not  from  a  periodical  published  in  a  corner,  and  car- 


1  See  De  Bow's  Review,  vol.  xx.  p.  74.  *  See  ibid.,  vol.  x.  p.  493. 

8  Henry  Adams's  History  of  the  United  States,  vol.  i.  p.  378. 


CH.IV.]  HOME  EDUCATION  RECOMMENDED  353 

rying  no  influence,  that  these  comments  have  been  cited. 
De  Bow's  Review  was  devoted  to  economical  and  social 
matters;  it  was  one  of  the  most  powerful  organs  of  the 
thinking  people  and  best  society  of  the  South.  Moreover, 
it  had  received  the  endorsement  of  fifty-five  Southern  sena- 
tors and  representatives  in  Congress  for  the  "  ability  and 
accuracy  of  its  exposition  of  the  working  of  the  system  of 
polity  of  the  Southern  States."  De  Bow  was  professor  of 
political  economy  in  the  University  of  Louisiana,  and  his 
Review  was  published  in  the  commercial  metropolis  of  the 
South.  Indeed,  the  provision  for  education  in  harmony 
with  their  institutions  was  a  subject  of  grave  consideration 
by  thinking  men,  and  a  thoroughly  representative  body — 
the  Southern  commercial  convention  which  was  held  at 
Memphis  in  1853 — paid  it  marked  attention.  The  conven- 
tion earnestly  recommended  to  the  citizens  of  the  Southern 
States :  "  The  education  of  their  youth  at  home,  as  far  as 
practicable;  the  employment  of  native  teachers  in  their 
schools  and  colleges ;  the  encouragement  of  a  home  press ; 
and  the  publication  of  books  adapted  to  the  educational 
wants  and  the  social  condition  of  these  States."1 

It  is  no  wonder  such  recommendations  were  thought  nec- 
essary, for  many  delegates  must  have  remembered  the  diffi- 
culty which  attended  the  publication  of  the  works  of  Calhoun, 
although  South  Carolina  appropriated  ten  thousand  dollars 
for  the  purpose.  A  Charleston  newspaper  complained :  "  The 
writings  of  Mr.  Calhoun  were  edited  in  Virginia ;  the  stere- 
otyped plates  were  cast  in  New  York ;  they  were  then  sent 
to  Columbia,  where  the  impressions  were  struck  off;  the 
sheets  were  thence  transferred  to  Charleston  in  order  that 
the  books  might  be  bound ;  and  now  that  they  are  bound, 
there  is  really  no  publisher  in  the  State  to  see  to  their  circu- 
lation." a  

1  De  Bow's  Review,  vol.  xv.  p.  268. 

8  Charleston  News,  cited  in  the  New  York  Independent,  Oct.  30th,  1851  ; 
see  also  estimate  of  the  book-publishing  business  of  1856  in  Recollections 
of  a  Lifetime,  S.  G.  Goodrich,  vol.  ii.  p.  387,  in  which  the  business  of  the 
L— 23 


354  THE  NORTH  AND   THE  SOUTH  [Ca  IV. 

If  we  contrast  the  North  and  the  South  in  material  prosper- 
ity, the  South  will  appear  to  no  better  advantage  than  it  does 
in  respect  of  intellectual  development.  Yet  the  superiority 
of  the  North  in  this  regard  was  by  no  means  admitted.  The 
thinking  men  of  the  South  felt,  if  this  were  proved,  a  serious 
drawback  to  their  system  would  be  manifest.  We  find, 
therefore,  in  the  Southern  literature  many  arguments  to 
show  that  the  contrary  was  true ;  most  of  them  take  the 
form  of  statistical  demonstrations,  in  which  the  census  fig- 
ures are  made  to  do  strange  and  wondrous  duty.  Parson 
Brownlow,  of  Tennessee,  in  a  joint  debate  at  Philadelphia, 
where  he  maintained  that  American  slavery  ought  to  be  per- 
petuated, brought  forward  an  array  of  figures  which  dem- 
onstrated to  his  own  satisfaction  that  the  material  prosper- 
ity of  the  South  was  greater  than  that  of  the  North ;  at  the 
time  he  was  speaking  it  seemed  to  him  that  his  section  was 
smiling  with  good  fortune,  while  the  Northern  industries 
were  crippled  by  the  loss  of  Southern  trade  and  by  the  finan- 
cial panic  of  185T.1  A  favorite  method  of  argument  was 
to  make  a  comparison  between  two  representative  States. 
Georgia  and  New  York  were  contrasted  in  the  light  of  the 
census  of  1850,  with  the  result  of  convincing  the  Southern 
mind  that  in  social,  political,  and  financial  conditions  Geor- 
gia was  far  superior  to  New  York.2  A  paper  was  read  be- 
fore the  Mercantile  Society  of  Cincinnati  to  demonstrate 
that,  as  between  Maryland  and  Massachusetts,  Virginia  and 
New  York,  Kentucky  and  Ohio,  the  slave  States  were  the 
more  prosperous.  "  Virginia,"  says  the  author,  "  instead  of 
being  poor  and  in  need  of  the  pity  of  the  much  poorer  pop- 
ulation of  the  North,  is  perhaps  the  richest  community  in 


Southern  and  Southwestern  States  is  given  at  $750,000,  in  a  total  of 
$16,000,000 ;  in  the  first-named  figures  are  included  Baltimore  and  Louis- 
ville, which  were  by  far  the  most  important  publishing  cities  in  the  South. 

1  Debate  between  Brownlow  and  Pryne  at  Philadelphia,  1858,  pp.  258 
and  265. 

2  De  Bow's  Industrial  Resources,  vol.  iii.  p.  122. 


CH.  IV.]  THE  NORTH  AND  THE  SOUTH  355 

the  world."  After  a  comparison  of  the  census  figures,  the 
conclusion  is  that  the  free  people  of  the  slave-holding  States 
are  much  richer  than  those  of  the  non-slave-holding  States. 
De  Bow,  in  introducing  this  paper  to  his  public,  said  that, 
although  it  had  been  angrily  assailed  by  the  abolition  press, 
it  had  never  been  refuted  or  invalidated  in  any  material 
respect.1  Arguments,  of  which  these  are  examples,  are  made 
by  men  who  go  with  preconceived  ideas  to  the  statistics,  and 
select  therefrom  what  they  deem  will  sustain  their  thesis. 
Such  reasoning  does  not  proceed  from  earnest  seekers  after 
truth.  The  speciousness  of  its  deductions  was  shown  over 
and  over  again.  Indeed,  it  needed  no  extensive  marshalling 
of  statistics  to  prove  that  the  welfare  of  the  North  was 
greater  than  that  of  the  South.  Two  simple  facts,  every- 
where admitted,  were  of  so  far-reaching  moment  that  they 
amounted  to  irrefragable  demonstration.  The  emigration 
from  the  slave  States  to  the  free  States  was  much  larger 
than  the  movement  in  the  other  direction ;  and  the  South 
repelled  the  industrious  emigrants  who  came  from  Europe, 
while  the  North  attracted  them.  "  Leave  us  in  the  peacea- 
ble possession  of  our  slaves,"  cried  Parson  Brownlow,  "  and 
our  Northern  neighbors  may  have  all  the  paupers  and  con- 
victs that  pour  in  upon  us  from  European  prisons."  *  This 
remark  found  general  sympathy,  because  the  South  ignored, 
or  wished  to  ignore,  the  fact  that  able-bodied  men  with 
intelligence  enough  to  wish  to  better  their  condition  are 
the  most  costly  and  valuable  products  on  earth,  and  that 
nothing  can  more  redound  to  the  advantage  of  a  new 
country  than  to  get  men  without  having  been  at  the  cost 
of  rearing  them.8  This  was  occasionally  appreciated  at  the 


1  De  Bow's  Review,  vol.  xxii.  p.  623.      The  paper  was  read  in  1848  and 
based  on  the  census  of  1840.     See  also  De  Bow,  vol.  vii.  p.  140. 

2  Debate  between  Brownlow  and  Pryne,  p.  263. 

8  One  of  the  imports  of  the  United  States,  "  that  of  adult  and  trained 
immigrants,  .  .  .  would  be  in  an  economical  analysis  underestimated  at 
£100,000,000  a  year."— Thorold  Rogers,  Lectures  in  1888,  Economic  In- 
terpretation of  History,  p.  407. 


356  THE  NORTH  AND  THE  SOUTH  [Ca  IV. 

South,1  and  sometimes  the  greater  growth  in  wealth  and 
population  of  the  North  would  break  in  upon  the  mind  of 
Southern  thinkers  with  such  force  that  they  could  not  hold 
their  peace.2  Sometimes  the  truth  would  be  owned,  but  its 
dissemination  was  prevented,  for  fear  that  the  admission  of 
it  would  furnish  arguments  to  the  abolitionists.' 

Two  of  the  most  careful  observers  who  ever  considered 
the  differences  between  the  South  and  the  North  are  unim- 
peachable witnesses  to  the  greater  prosperity  of  the  latter. 
Washington  noted,  in  1796,  that  the  prices  of  land  were 
higher  in  Pennsylvania  than  in  Virginia  and  Maryland, 
"  although .  they  are  not  of  superior  quality."  One  of  the 
important  reasons  for  the  difference  was  that  Pennsylvania 
had  passed  laws  for  the  gradual  abolition  of  slavery,  which 
had  not  been  done  in  the  other  two  States  ;  but  it  was  Wash- 
ington's opinion  that  "nothing  is  more  certain  than  that 
they  must,  at  a  period  not  far  remote,"  take  steps  in  the 
same  direction.4 

De  Tocqueville  was  struck  with  the  external  contrast  be- 
tween the  free  and  the  slave  States.  "  The  traveller  who 
floats  down  the  current  of  the  Ohio,"  he  wrote,  "  to  the 
point  where  that  river  joins  the  Mississippi  may  be  said  to 
sail  between  liberty  and  slavery ;  and  he  only  needs  to  look 
around  him  in  order  to  decide  in  an  instant  which  is  the 
more  favorable  to  humanity.  On  the  Southern  bank  of  the 
river  the  population  is  thinly  scattered ;  from  time  to  time 
one  descries  a  gang  of  slaves  at  work,  going  with  indolent 
air  over  the  half -desert  fields ;  the  primeval  forest  unceasing- 
ly reappears ;  one  would  think  that  the  people  were  asleep ; 
man  seems  to  be  idle,  nature  alone  offers  a  picture  of  activ- 


1  See  a  thoughtful  article  in  the  Augusta  Chronicle,  cited  in  Niles's 
Register,  April,  1849,  vol.  Ixxv.  p.  271. 

1  See  citation  from  Richmond  Enquirer,  Cotton  Kingdom,  vol.  ii.  p.  365 ; 
also  Richmond  Whig,  cited  in  Life  of  Garrison,  vol.  i.  p.  252. 

1  See  proceedings  in  regard  to  an  address  to  the  farmers  at  a  Virginia 
agricultural  convention,  Cotton  Kingdom,  vol.  ii.  p.  366. 

4  Sparks,  vol.  xii.  p.  326. 


CH.IV.]  THE  NORTH  AND  THE  SOUTH  357 

ity  and  life.  From  the  Northern  bank,  on  the  contrary, 
there  arises  the  busy  hum  of  industry  which  is  heard  afar 
off ;  the  fields  abound  with  rich  harvests ;  comfortable  homes 
indicate  the  taste  and  care  of  the  laborer ;  prosperity  is  seen 
on  all  sides ;  man  appears  rich  and  content ;  he  labors." ' 
The  difference  was  greater  when  De  Tocqueville  visited  this 
country  than  in  Washington's  day ;  and  it  was  greater  in 
1850  than  when  the  philosophic  Frenchman  recorded  his 
observations  in  the  book  which  is  a  classic  in  the  science  of 
politics.  The  difference  "was  of  a  nature  that  must  become 
intensified  with  the  years. 

What  was  the  reason  of  the  marked  diversity  between  the 
two  sections  of  the  country  ?  The  only  solution  of  the  ques- 
tion is  that  which  presented  itself  to  the  mind  of  De  Tocque- 
ville. "  Almost  all  the  differences  which  may  be  remarked 
between  the  Southerners  and  Northerners  had  their  origin 
in  slavery ;" 3  for  the  settlers  of  both  sections  of  the  country 
belonged  "  to  the  same  European  race,  had  the  same  cus- 
toms, the  same  civilization,  the  same  laws,  and  their  shades 
of  difference  were  very  slight." 3  It  is  true  that  the  Cava- 
lier colonized  Yirginia,  and  the  Puritan  Massachusetts.  Yet 
after  the  Kevolution  of  1688  the  Cavalier  and  Puritan  in 
England  began  coming  nearer  together,  until,  by  the  middle 
of  the  nineteenth  century,  there  was  no  longer  a  line  of  de- 
marcation. After  the  American  Revolution,  however,  the 
difference  between  the  Virginian  and  the  man  of  Massachu- 
setts increased  so  that  it  became  the  remark  of  travellers, 
the  theme  of  statesmen,  and  finally  a  subject  for  the  arbitra- 
ment of  the  sword.  In  that  contest  the  Scotch-Irishman  of 
South  Carolina  fought  on  one  side,  and  the  Scotch-Irishman 
of  Pennsylvania  fought  on  the  other ;  but  in  the  seventeenth 
century,  on  their  native  soil,  they  would  have  stood  shoulder 
to  shoulder  in  a  common  cause. 


1  De  la  Democratic  en  Amerique,  vol.  ii.  p.  311.  See  also  H.  Martineau, 
Society  in  America,  vol.  i.  p.  304.  2  De  Tocqueville,  vol.  ii.  p.  316. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  310 ;  see  also  article  of  Prof.  A.  B.  Hart,  New  England  Magar 
zine,  November,  1891,  p.  376. 


358  THE  NORTH  AND  THE  SOUTH          [On.  IV. 

Nor  will  the  diversity  of  climate  account  in  any  consider- 
able degree  for  the  difference  between  the  South  and  the 
North  in  material  prosperity  and  intellectual  development. 
The  climate  of  Virginia  and  Kentucky  was  like  that  of  Penn- 
sylvania and  Ohio ;  yet  the  contrast  was  seen  in  a  marked 
degree  between  those  communities.  The  climate  of  the 
slave  States  as  a  whole  was  not  warmer  than  that  of  Italy 
or  Spain,  and  those  countries  have  been  the  seat  of  an  ener- 
getic and  intellectual  people.1  An  illustration  showing  that 
the  physical  conditions  of  the  South  did  not  require  slavery 
was  seen  in  the  German  colony  settled  in  Texas.  By  1857" 
the  Germans  made  up  nearly  one-half  of  the  white  popula- 
tion of  Western  Texas,  and  constituted  a  community  apart. 
They  believed  in  the  dignity  of  labor;  those  who  had  not 
land  were  willing  to  work  for  the  proprietors,  and  those  who 
had  capital  would  not  purchase  slaves.  They  were  industri- 
ous, thrifty,  fairly  prosperous,  and  contented.  They  brought 
from  their  homes  some  of  the  flowers  of  civilization,  and  were 
an  oasis  in  the  arid  desert  of  slavery.  Olmsted  had  a  hap- 
pier experience  among  these  people  than  in  his  journey  from 
the  Mississippi  to  the  James,  where  he  failed  to  see  the  com- 
mon indications  of  comfort  and  culture."  Among  the  Ger- 
mans of  Texas,  he  wrote,  "  you  are  welcomed  by  a  figure  in 
blue  flannel  shirt  and  pendent  beard,"  quoting  Tacitus; 
you  see  "  Madonnas  upon  log  walls ;"  coffee  is  served  you  "  in 
tin  cups  upon  Dresden  saucers ;"  and  you  hear  a  symphony 
of  Beethoven  on  a  grand  piano.3  These  Germans  loved  mu- 
sic and  hated  slavery.  In  1854,  after  their  annual  musical 
festival  at  San  Antonio,  they  resolved  themselves  into  a  po- 


1  "  Contemplated  in  the  mass,  facts  do  not  countenance  the  current  idea 
that  great  heat  hinders  progress."  —  Sociology,  Herbert  Spencer,  vol.  i. 
p.  19.  "  High  degrees  of  moral  sentiment  control  the  unfavorable  influ- 
ences of  climate  ;  and  some  of  our  grandest  examples  of  men  and  of  races 
come  from  the  equatorial  regions — as  the  genius  of  Egypt,  of  India,  and 
of  Arabia." — Emerson's  Lecture  on  Civilization. 

3  See  p.  349. 

3  Olmsted's  Texas  Journey,  p.  430. 


CH.IV.]  THE  SOUTHERN  ARISTOCRACY  359 

litical  convention,  and  declared  that  slavery  was  an  evil 
which  ought  eventually  to  be  removed.1 

In  giving  the  South  credit  for  producing  able  politicians, 
we  have  not  exhausted  the  subject  of  the  virtues  of  her  so- 
cial system.  The  little  aristocracy,  whose  nucleus  was  less 
than  eight  thousand  large  slave-holders,3  had  another  excel- 
lence that  deserves  high  esteem.  While  in  the  North  their 
manners  were  often  aggressive,  in  their  own  homes  they 
displayed  good  breeding,  refined  manners,  and  dignified  de- 
portment. And  these  were  more  than  outside  show ;  the 
Southern  gentleman  was  to  the  manner  born.  In  society 
and  conversation  he  appeared  to  the  best  advantage.  He 
had  self-assurance,  an  easy  bearing,  and  to  women  a  chival- 
rous courtesy ;  he  was  "  stately  but  condescending,  haughty 
but  jovial." 3  Underneath  all  were  physical  courage,  a  habit 
of  command,  a  keen  sense  of  honor,  and  a  generous  disposi- 
tion. The  Southerners  were  fast  friends,  and  they  dispensed 
hospitality  with  an  open  hand.  They  fitted  themselves  for 
society,  and  looked  upon  conversation  as  an  art.  They  knew 
how  to  draw  out  the  best  from  their  guests ;  and,  with  all 
their  high  self -appreciation,  at  home  they  did  not  often  in- 
dulge in  distasteful  egotism.  They  amused  themselves  with 
literature,  art,  and  science ;  for  such  knowledge  they  deemed 
indispensable  for  prolonging  an  interesting  conversation. 
They  were  cultivated,  educated  men  of  the  world,  who 
would  meet  their  visitors  on  their  own  favorite  ground.4 

If  we  reckon  by  numbers,  there  were  certainly  more  well- 
bred  people  at  the  North  than  at  the  South ;  but  when  we 
compare  the  cream  of  society  in  both  sections,  the  palm 
must  be  awarded  to  the  slave-holding  community.  The  testi- 


1  Olmsted's  Texas  Journey,  p.  435  et  ante.  *  See  p.  346. 

8  Cotton  Kingdom,  vol.  ii.  p.  335.  "  We  justly  admire  the  easy,  grace- 
ful politeness  of  our  Southern  brethren."  —  Todd's  Student's  Manual, 
p.  235. 

*  "  The  people  [of  the  South]  seem  to  be  fine,  open-hearted."— Lieber 
to  Sumner,  1835,  Life  and  Letters  of  Lieber,  p.  109. 


360  THE  SOUTHERN  ARISTOCRACY  [CH.  IT 

mony  of  English  gentlemen  and  ladies,  few  of  whom  have 
any  sympathy  with  slavery,  is  almost  unanimous  in  this  re- 
spect. They  bear  witness  to  the  aristocratic  bearing  of 
their  generous  hosts.  Between  the  titled  English  visitors 
and  the  Southern  gentlemen  there  was,  indeed,  a  fellow-feel- 
ing, which  grew  up  between  the  two  aristocracies  separated 
by  the  sea.  There  was  the  concord  of  sentiments.  The 
Southern  lord,  like  his  English  prototype,  believed  that  the 
cultivation  of  the  soil  was  the  finest  and  noblest  pursuit.1 
But  nearly  all  educated  Englishmen,  whether  belonging  to 
the  aristocracy  or  not,  enjoyed  their  intercourse  with  South- 
erners more  than  they  did  the  contact  with  the  best  society 
at  the  North,  on  account  of  the  high  value  which  they 
placed  on  good  manners.  The  men  and  women  who  com- 
posed the  Brook  Farm  community,  and  the  choice  spirits 
whom  they  attracted,  were  certainly  more  interesting  and 
admirable  than  any  set  of  people  one  could  meet  in  Rich- 
mond, Charleston,  or  New  Orleans  ;a  but  societ}r,  properly 
so  called,  is  not  made  up  of  women  with  missions  and  men 
who  aim  to  reform  the  world.  The  little  knot  of  literary 
people  who  lived  in  Boston,  Cambridge,  and  vicinity  were  a 
fellowship  by  whom  it  was  an  honor  to  be  received ;  but 
these  were  men  of  learning  and  wisdom ;  they  were  "  inac- 
cessible, solitary,  impatient  of  interruptions,  fenced  by  eti- 
quette ;"  and  few  of  them  had  the  desire,  leisure,  or  money 
to  take  part  in  the  festive  entertainments  which  are  a  neces- 
sary accompaniment  of  society. 

When  the  foreign  visitors  who  came  here  during  the  gen- 
eration before  the  war  compared  Northern  and  Southern 


1  "  You  know  I  am  engaged  entirely  on  my  estates  at  present,  and 
solely  occupied,  thank  God  !  in  the  finest  and  noblest  pursuit — the  culti- 
vation of  the  soil." — Letter  of  F.  W.  Pickens,  of  South  Carolina,  to  James 
Buchanan,  Life  of  Buchanan,  Curtis,  vol.  i.  p.  608 ;  see  also  Memorials  of 
a  Southern  Planter,  Smedes,  p.  115. 

8  "  Je  ne  trouve  pas  si  la  Nouvelle  Orleans  la  me'me  vie  intellectuelle, 
le  m6me  mouvement  scientifique  qu'a"  Boston,  &  New  York,  £  Philadel- 
phie." — J.  J.  Ampere,  Promenade  en  Amerique,  tome  ii.  p.  155. 


CH.IV.]  SOUTHERN  SOCIETY  361 

society,  they  had  in  their  minds  the  people  whom  they  met 
at  dinners,  receptions,  and  balls ;  the  Northern  men  seemed 
frequently  overweighted  with  business  cares,  and,  except  on 
the  subjects  of  trade,  politics,  and  the  material  growth  of 
the  country,  were  not  good  talkers.  The  merchant  or  manu- 
facturer of  Boston,  New  York,  or  Philadelphia  was  a  busy 
man ;  he  had  not  the  leisure  of  his  Southern  brother  to  cul- 
tivate the  amenities  of  life,  and  he  lacked  that  abandon  of 
manners  which  Englishmen  found  so  charming  in  the  slave- 
holding  lords. 

This  superiority  of  the  best  Southern  society  undoubt- 
edly grew  out  of  the  social  system  of  which  slavery  was 
the  basis ;  but  there  went  with  it  two  drawbacks.  In  these 
circles  where  conversation  was  a  delight,  one  subject  must 
be  treated  with  the  utmost  delicacy.  The  Englishman 
could  argue  with  his  Southern  host  that  a  monarchy  was 
better  than  a  republic,  but  he  might  not  exult  over  the 
emancipation  of  the  slaves  in  the  West  Indies.  The  German 
could  deny  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible,  but  he  might  not 
question  that  the  institution  of  slavery  was  divine.  One 
was  made  to  feel  in  the  most  emphatic  manner  that  his  host 
desired  no  expression  on  the  subject  other  than  an  opinion 
that  the  relation  which  existed  between  the  whites  and  the 
blacks  at  the  South  was  the  necessary  one. 

The  high  sense  of  personal  worth,  the  habit  of  command, 
the  tyranny  engendered  by  the  submission  of  the  prostrate 
race,  made  the  Southern  gentleman  jealous  in  honor,  sudden 
and  quick  in  quarrel.  While  the  duello  was  not  an  outgrowth 
of  slavery,  its  practipe  in  the  South  was  more  savage  and 
bloody  than  anywhere  else  in  the  civilized  world.  The  cus- 
tom of  going  about  fully  armed  to  be  prepared  for  an  enemy, 
the  readiness  with  which  pistols  were  used  on  slight  provo- 
cation, the  frequent  occurrence  of  deadly  street  fights,  were 
an  anomaly  among  a  people  so  urbane  and  generous ;  but 
they  were  the  result  of  slavery. 

From  youth  the  slave-holder  was  accustomed  to  have  his 
word  regarded  as  law;  when  he  insisted,  others  yielded. 


362  "UNCLE  TOM'S  CABIN"  [€H.  IV. 

Accustomed  to  irresponsible  power  over  his  dependants,  he 
could  not  endure  contradiction,  he  would  not  brook  opposi- 
tion. When  one  lord  ran  against  another  in  controversy,  if 
the  feelings  were  deeply  engaged  the  final  argument  was 
the  pistol.  The  smaller  slave-holders,  influenced  partly  by 
the  same  reason  and  partly  actuated  by  imitation  of  the 
aristocracy,  settled  their  disputes  in  like  manner,  but  more 
brutally,  for  they  also  used  the  bowie-knife  in  their  encoun- 
ters. The  poor  whites  aped  their  betters.  The  consequence 
was  a  condition  of  society  hardly  conceivable  in  a  civilized, 
Christian,  Anglo-Saxon  community.  In  the  new  States  of 
the  Southwest,  it  was  perhaps  explainable  as  incident  to  the 
life  of  the  frontier ;  but  when  met  with  in  the  old  communi- 
ties of  Virginia  and  the  Carolinas,  it  could  admit  but  of  one 
inference — that  it  was  primarily  due  to  slavery.1  But  slav- 
ery itself  and  these  attendant  phenomena  were  survivals 
in  the  South,  more  than  in  any  other  contemporary  enlight- 
ened community,  of  a  passing  militant  civilization.8 

I  have  endeavored  to  describe  slavery  and  its  effects  as  it 
might  have  appeared  to  an  honest  inquirer  in  the  decade 
before  the  war.  There  was  no  difficulty  in  seeing  the  facts 
as  they  have  been  stated,  or  in  arriving  at  the  conclusions 
drawn.  There  was  a  correct  picture  of  the  essential  features 


1  My  authorities  for  this  description  of  the  manners  of  the  South  are 
Olmsted's  Cotton  Kingdom  and  Seaboard  Slave  States;  Kemble's  Journal ; 
Martineau's  Society  in  America ;  Buckingham's  Slave  States  of  America ; 
Mackay's  Life  and  Liberty  in  America;  De  Bow's  Resources;  Basil  Hall's 
North  America;  America  and  the  Americans,  by  AchilleMurat;  Pro-slav- 
ery Argument;  De  Bou?8  Review;  Promenade  en  Amferique,  J.  J.  Ampere. 

"L'influence  de  1'esclavage,  combined  avec  le  caractere  anglais,  ex- 
plique  les  moeurs  et  l'6tat  social  du  Sud." — De  la  D6mocratie  en  Am6- 
rique,  vol.  i.  p.  46.  See  also  Hurrygraphs,  N.  P.  Willis,  p.  302. 

*  For  distinction  between  militant  and  industrial  organizations,  see 
Herbert  Spencer's  Sociology,  passim ;  also  Data  of  Ethics,  p.  135,  where 
Spencer  writes :  While  militancy  "  is  dominant,  ownership  of  a  slave  is 
honorable,  and,  in  the  slave,  submission  is  praiseworthy ;"  but  as  indus- 
trialism "  grows  dominant,  slave-owning  becomes  a  crime,  and  servile  obe- 
dience excites  contempt." 


CH.  IV.]  "UNCLE   TOM'S  CABIN"  363 

of  slavery  in  "  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin,"  the  book  which  every- 
body read.  The  author  of  it  had  "  but  one  purpose,  to  show 
the  institution  of  slavery  truly  just  as  it  existed." l  "While 
she  had  not  the  facts  which  a  critical  historian  would  have 
collected — for  the  "Key  to  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin"  was  not 
compiled  until  after  the  novel  was  written — she  used  with 
the  intuition  of  genius  the  materials  gained  through  per- 
sonal observation,  and  the  result  was  what  she  desired.  If 
we  bear  in  mind  that  the  novelist,  from  the  very  nature  of 
the  art,  deals  with  characteristic  and  not  with  average  per- 
sons, the  conclusion  is  resistless  that  Mrs.  Stowe  realized  her 
ideal.  Fanny  Kemble  wrote  to  the  London  Times  that  she 
could  bear  witness  to  the  truth  and  moderation  of  "  Uncle 
Tom's  Cabin"  as  a  representation  of  the  slave  system  in  the 
United  States,  and  added  that  her  testimony  was  "  the  ex- 
perience of  an  eye-witness,  having  been  a  resident  in  the 
Southern  States,  and  having  opportunities  of  observation  such 
as  no  one  who  has  not  lived  on  a  slave  estate  can  have." a  It 
was  certain,  she  proceeded,  that  the  incident  of  Uncle  Tom's 
death  was  not  only  possible,  but  it  was  unfortunately  a  very 
probable  occurrence.3  Olmsted  came  to  the  conclusion  that 
cases  like  the  Ked  Kiver  episode  were  not  extremely  rare.4 

The  fidelity  to  truth  of  that  portion  of  the  novel  was  some- 
times questioned  in  a  curious  way.  Bishop  Polk  assured  an 
English  clergyman  that  he  "  had  been  all  over  the  country 
on  Ked  Kiver,  the  scene  of  the  fictitious  sufferings  of  Uncle 
Tom,  and  that  he  had  found  the  temporal  and  spiritual  welfare 
of  the  negroes  well  cared  for.  He  had  confirmed  thirty  black 
persons  near  the  situation  assigned  to  Legree's  estate." 5 

A  Northern  doctor  of  divinity  who  wrote  a  book  in  de- 
fence of  slavery  based  on  a  three  months'  sojourn  at  the 
South,  admitted  that  "  some  of  the  warmest  advocates  of 
slavery  [at  the  South]  said  that  they  could  parallel  most  of 


1  Introduction  to  new  edition  of  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin,  p.  12. 

2  Kemble's  Journal,  p.  300.  » Ibid.,  p.  301. 

4  Cotton  Kingdom,  vol.  i.  p.  356.  5  Ibid.,  vol.  ii.  p.  213. 


364  "UNCLE  TOM'S  CABIN"  [Cn.IV. 

the  abuses  in  slavery  mentioned  in  the  book  out  of  their 
own  knowledge ;  and  on  speaking  of  some  bad  master  and 
wishing  to  express  his  tyrannical  character  and  barbarous 
conduct,  they  would  say,  '  He  is  a  real  Legree ;'  or,  ;  He  is 
worse  than  Legree.' "  1  A  Southern  Presbyterian  preacher 
who  published  a  book  of  speeches  and  letters  to  maintain 
that  "  slavery  is  of  God,"  and  ought  "  to  continue  for  the 
good  of  the  slave,  the  good  of  the  master,  and  the  good  of 
the  whole  American  people,"  said :  "  I  have  admitted,  and 
do  again  admit,  without  qualification,  that  every  fact  in 
'  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin '  has  occurred  in  the  South ;"  and 
again  he  speaks  of  it  as  "that  book  of  genius,  true  in  all 
its  facts,  false  in  all  its  impressions." a  The  great  desire  of 
the  author  to  be  impartial  was  evident  from  the  description 
of  slave-holders;  the  humane  and  generous  men  were  even 
more  prominent  in  the  story  than  the  inhuman  ones.  She 
did  justice  to  the  prevailing  and  correct  sentiment  at  the 
South  that  Northerners  were  harder  masters  than  Southern 
men,  by  making  Legree,  whose  name  became  a  synonym  for 
a  brutal  slave-holder,  a  son  of  New  England. 

Mrs.  Stowe  was  felicitous  in  her  description  of  the  negro 
character.  There  was  a  fitness  in  the  secondary  title  of  the 
book,  "Life  among  the  Lowly."  It  was  the  life  she  had 
studied  with  rare  human  sympathy,  and  in  its  portrayal  the 
author's  genius  is  seen  to  the  best  advantage.  Some  critics 
objected  that  Uncle  Tom  was  an  impossible  character,  and 
that  the  world,  in  weeping  at  the  tale  of  his  ill-treatment 
and  sufferings,  exhibited  a  mawkish  sentimentality.  But 
the  author  knew  his  prototype.3  Frederick  Douglass  also 
describes  a  colored  man  whose  resemblance  to  Uncle  Tom 
was  "so  perfect  that  he  might  have  been  the  original  of 
Mrs.  Stowe's  Christian  hero." 4  Eev.  Noah  Davis,  who  wrote 


1  South-side  View  of  Slavery,  Nehemiah  Adams,  p.  158. 
1  Slavery  Ordained  by  God,  Ross,  pp.  5,  38, 53. 
•  Preface  to  new  edition  of  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin,  p.  vii 
4  Life  of  Douglass,  p.  94. 


CH.IV.]  SOUTHERN  DEFENCE  OF  SLAVERY  365 

in  a  little  book  the  narrative  of  his  own  life,  certainly  equalled 
Uncle  Tom  in  piety,  self-denial^  and  industry.1 

The  author's  most  conspicuous  failure  as  a  portrayer  of 
manners  is  in  the  descriptions  of  the  best  society  at  the 
South.  Nor  is  this  surprising.  Her  life  was  an  earnest 
working  one,  and  she  had  no  conception  of  a  society  where 
dinner-parties,  receptions,  and  balls  made  up  the  lives  of  its 
votaries.  Her  associates  were  ministers,  devoted  to  their 
calling,  and  hard-working  college  professors,  who  esteemed 
learning  above  all ;  their  thoughts  were  so  engrossed  in  their 
serious  occupations  that  the  lighter  graces  of  life  seemed 
like  folly  and  idleness.  It  is,  then,  no  wonder  that  the  subtle 
charm  which  exquisite  manners  spread  over  plantation  life 
and  New  Orleans  society  completely  eluded  the  observation 
of  the  author. 

The  Southern  people  desired  to  stand  well  at  the  great 
tribunal  ot  modern  civilization.2  As  their  peculiar  institu- 
tion was  under  the  ban  of  the  most  enlightened  portion  of 
the  world,  they  made  repeated  efforts  to  set  themselves  in 
the  right.  As  long  as  the  argument  followed  the  line  of  ad- 
mitting the  evil,  while  averring  that  for  the  present,  at 
least,  slavery  seemed  the  most  advantageous  relation  be- 
tween the  two  races  at  the  South,  the  slave-holders  had 
much  sympathy  from  the  North  and  from  England.  It 
was  conceded  that  if  the  slaves  were  freed,  civil  rights 
must  eventually  be  accorded  them.  This  condition'  stag- 
gered many  who  hated  slavery.  In  those  Northern  States 
where  the  negro  had  the  right  to  vote,  that  right  was  exer- 
cised only  with  great  difficulty  and  some  danger;  and  the 
blacks  were  few  in  number,  and  patiently  submitted  to  a 
practical  annulling  of  their  privilege.  But  the  fact  was  ap- 


1  A  Narrative  of  the  Life  of  Noah  Davis,  a  colored  man,  written  by 
himself,  published  at  Baltimore,  1859.  I  am  informed  by  a  colored  man 
who  knew  him  well  that  Davis  was  truly  a  religious  man,  and  had  the 
confidence  and  respect  of  all  classes  of  citizens. 

*  Webster's  expression  when  speaking  on  slavery,  Works,  vol.  v.  p,  304 


366          SOUTHERN  DEFENCE  OF  SLAVERY        [On.  IV. 

predated  that  at  the  South,  owing  to  the  great  number  of 
negroes,  the  problem  would  be  a  far  different  one.  There 
was,  therefore,  considerable  sympathy  with  the  opinion  of 
McDuffie,  that  if  the  slaves  were  freed  and  made  voters,  no 
rational  man  could  live  in  such  a  state  of  society.1  Basil 
Hall,  who  travelled  in  this  country  in  1827  and  1828,  believed 
that  the  slave-holders  were  "a  class  of  men  who  are  really 
entitled  to  a  large  share  of  our  indulgence  •"  that  no  men 
were  more  ready  than  were  most  of  the  American  planters 
to  grant  "  that  slavery  is  an  evil  in  itself  and  eminently  an 
evil  in  its  consequences ;"  but  to  do  away  with  it  seemed  "  so 
completely  beyond  the  reach  of  any  human  exertions  that  I 
consider  the  abolition  of  slavery  as  one  of  the  most  profit- 
less of  all  possible  subjects  of  discussion." 3  The  difficulty 
did  not  escape  the  philosophic  mind  of  De  Tocqueville.  "  I 
am  obliged  to  confess,"  he  wrote,  "  that  I  do  not  regard  the 
abolition  of  slavery  as  a  means  of  putting  off  the  struggle 
between  the  two  races  in  the  Southern  States.  .  .  .  God  for- 
bid that  I  should  justify  the  principle  of  negro  slavery,  as 
some  American  writers  have  done ;  but  I  only  observe  that 
all  the  countries  which  formerly  adopted  that  execrable 
principle  are  not  equally  able  to  abandon  it  at  the  present 
time."3 

Owing,  however,  to  the  efforts  which  Southern  statesmen 
made  for  the  extension  of  slavery,  it  became  necessary  to 
maintain  the  proposition  that  slavery  is  a  positive  good. 
The  logic  of  the  abolitionists  likewise  had  influence  in  goad- 
ing the  Southern  reasoners  to  this  position.  "  Twenty  years 
ago,"  wrote  W.  Gilmore  Simms,  "  few  persons  in  the  South 
undertook  to  justify  negro  slavery,  except  on  the  score  of 
necessity.  Now,  very  few  persons  in  the  same  region  ques- 
tion their  perfect  right  to  the  labor  of  their  slaves ;  and, 
more,  their  moral  obligation  to  keep  them  still  subject  as 


1  Life  of  Garrison,  vol.  ii.  p.  62. 

»  Basil  Hall's  North  America,  vol.  ii.  p.  62. 

'  De  la  Democratic  en  Ame'rique,  voL  ii.  p.  338. 


CH.IV.]        SOUTHERN  DEFENCE  OF  SLAVERY          367 

slaves,  and  to  compel  their  labor,  so  long  as  they  remain  the 
inferior  beings  which  we  find  them  now,  and  which  they 
seem  to  have  been  from  the  beginning.  This  is  a  great 
good,  the  fruit  wholly  of  the  hostile  pressure." ' 

The  book  from  which  this  passage  is  taken  contains  all 
that  can  be  said  in  favor  of  slavery.  The  jurist,  the  states- 
man, the  litterateur,  and  the  educator  —  the  most  distin- 
guished writers  of  the  Southern  States  united  in  a  publica- 
tion of  collected  essays  which  they  had  written  for  South- 
ern magazines,  and  gave  them  to  the  world  under  the  title 
of  "  The  Pro-slavery  Argument."  As  I  have  already  had 
occasion  to  refer  many  times  to  this  work,  an  extended  ab- 
stract of  it  would  be  profitless.  In  the  light  of  our  day  it  is 
melancholy  reading.  It  is  the  waste  of  varied  ability  in  a 
doomed  cause. 

Chancellor  Harper  devotes  the  larger  part  of  his  essay 
to  arguing  the  good  of  slavery  as  an  abstract  question. 
Governor  (afterwards  Senator)  Hammond  applies  himself  to 
proving  two  texts :  First,  that  the  domestic  slavery  of  these 
States  is  "  not  only  an  inexorable  necessity  for  the  present, 
but  a  moral  and  humane  institution,  productive  of  the  great- 
est political  and  social  advantages ;" a  and,  "  I  endorse  with- 
out reserve  the  much-abused  sentiment  of  Governor  Mc- 
Duffie,  that  <  slavery  is  the  corner-stone  of  our  republican 
edifice ;'  while  I  repudiate,  as  ridiculously  absurd,  that  much- 
lauded  but  nowhere  accredited  dogma  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  that 
1  all  men  are  born  equal.'  " 8  Simms's  contribution  to  this 
volume,  entitled  "  Morals  of  Slavery,"  was  a  criticism  of 
Harriet  Martineau's  description  of  the  peculiar  institution. 
He  felt  that,  as  a  candid  man,  he  must  make  some  damag- 
ing admissions,  and  that  ultimately  he  would  be  obliged  to 
resort  to  recrimination ;  he  therefore  fortified  his  reasoning 
in  advance  by  demanding,  "  Why  should  we  account  to  these 


1  Pro-slavery  Argument,  p.  179.    Published  at  Charleston  by  "Walker, 
Richards  &  Co.,  1852. 
*  Pro-slavery  Argument,  p.  100.  '  Ibid.,  p.  110. 


368  SOUTHERN  DEFENCE  OF  SLAVERY  [CH.  IT. 

people  ?  What  are  they,  that  they  should  subject  us  to  the 
question  ?  .  .  .  The  Southern  people  form  a  nation,  and,  as 
such,  it  derogates  from  their  dignity  that  they  should  be 
called  to  answer  at  the  tribunal  of  any  other  nation.  When 
that  call  shall  be  definitely  or  imperatively  made,  they  will 
answer  with  their  weapons,  and  in  no  other  language  than 
that  of  war  to  the  knife."  l 

Dew,  the  professor  of  history,  metaphysics,  and  political 
law  at  William  and  Mary  College,  Virginia,  propounded  two 
questions :  "  Can  these  two  distinct  races  of  people,  now  liv- 
ing together  as  master  and  servant,  be  ever  separated  ?"  and 
"will  the  day  ever  arrive  when  the  black  can  be  liberated 
from  his  thraldom  and  mount  upward  in  the  scale  of  civil- 
ization and  rights,  to  an  equality  with  the  white  ?" a  He 
answered  both  of  these  questions  with  a  decided  negative ; 
his  article,  full  of  deductions  from  history  and  law,  and 
abounding  in  wealth  of  illustration,  essayed  to  prove  that 
any  such  consummation  was  either  undesirable  or  impossible. 
He  narrowed  the  question  to  Virginia ;  but  the  inference 
was  plain  that  what  applied  to  Virginia  could  with  greater 
force  be  urged  in  reference  to  most  of  the  other  slave  States. 
The  author  arrived  at  this  conclusion  :  "  There  is  slave  prop- 
erty of  the  value  of  $100,000,000  in  the  State  of  Virginia, 
and  it  matters  but  little  how  you  destroy  it,  whether  by  the 
slow  process  of  the  cautious  practitioner,  or  with  the  fright- 
ful despatch  of  the  self-confident  quack ;  when  it  is  gone,  no 
matter  how,  the  deed  will  be  done,  and  Virginia  will  be  a 
desert.'" 

We  can  only  regard  with  pity  these  arguments  that  were 
retailed  in  the  select  circles  of  the  South,  and  used  to  per- 


>  Pro-slavery  Argument,  p.  184.  a  Ibid.,  p.  287. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  384.  This  essay  of  Prof.  Dew  was  a  review  of  the  debate 
in  the  Virginia  legislature,  1831-32  (see  p.  57),  attracted  much  attention, 
and  had  great  influence  on  public  sentiment  in  Virginia  at  the  time.  The 
argument  was  regarded  as  convincing,  and  worthy  of  publication  in  con- 
nection with  essays  of  a  later  date. 


Cfe.IV.]        SOUTHERN  DEFENCE  OF  SLAVERY          369 

suade  willing  Northern  and  English  visitors.  When  we 
meet  them  in  their  naked  form,  we  can  only  turn  away 
with  disgust.  A  representative  from  Louisiana,  during  the 
debate  on  the  compromise  of  1850,  said  in  the  House : 
"A  union  is  not  worth  a  curse  as  long  as  distinction  ex- 
ists between  negroes  and  horses." '  "  Niggers  are  prop- 
erty, sir,"  an  illiterate  slave  -  holder  told  Olmsted,  "  the 
same  as  horses  and  cattle ;  and  nobody  has  any  more  right 
to  help  a  negro  that  has  run  away  than  he  has  to  steal  a 
horse."' 

A  writer  in  De  Bow's  Review  maintained  that  slavery 
of  the  negro  was  no  worse  than  slavery  of  the  ass. 
"God  made  the  world,"  he  tells  us.  "God  gave  thee 
there  thy  place,  my  hirsute  brother;  and,  according  to 
all  earthly  probabilities  and  possibilities,  it  is  thy  des- 
tiny therein  to  remain,  bray  as  thou  wilt.  From  the 
same  great  power  have  our  sable  friends,  Messrs.  Sambo, 
Cuffee  &  Co.,  received  their  position  also.  .  .  .  Alas, 
'my  poor  black  brother!'  thou,  like  the  hirsute,  must  do 
thy  braying  in  vain.  Where  God  has  placed  thee,  there 
must  thou  stay."*  A  unique  book  of  several  hundred 
closely  printed  pages  was  published  at  Natchez  in  1852, 
entitled  "Studies  on  Slavery,  in  Easy  Lessons."  A  con- 
siderable portion  of  it  was  devoted  to  combating  the  views 
of  Wayland  as  found  in  his  "  Moral  Science,"  and  of  Chan- 
ning  as  elaborated  in  his  treatise  on  "  Slavery."  The  author 
takes  issue  with  Channing  on  the  statement,  "  Now,  I  say, 
a  being  having  rights  cannot  justly  be  made  property ;  for 
this  claim  over  him  virtually  annuls  all  his  rights."  The 
Southern  apostle  rejoins :  "  We  see  no  force  of  argument 
in  this  position.  It  is  also  true  that  all  domestic  animals 
held  as  property  have  rights.  <  The  ox  knoweth  his  owner, 
and  the  ass  his  master's  crib.'  They  all  have  *  the  right  of 


1  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power,  Wilson,  vol.  ii.  p.  286. 
*  Cotton  Kingdom,  vol.  ii.  p.  92. 
3  De  Bow's  Resources,  vol.  ii.  p.  198. 

L— 24: 


370          SOUTHERN  DEFENCE  OF  SLAVERY        [On.  IV. 

petition,'  and  ask  in  their  way  for  food ;  are  they  the  less 
property  f ' l 

So  long  as  Southern  reasoners  maintained  that  the  negro 
race  was  inferior  to  the  Caucasian,  their  basis  was  scientific 
truth,  although  their  inference  that  this  fact  justified  slav- 
ery was  cruel  as  well  as  illogical.  But  the  assertion  that 
the  negro  does  not  partake  of  the  nature  of  mankind  is  as 
repugnant  to  science  as  it  is  to  common-sense.  The  chim- 
panzee is  not  so  near  in  intellect  to  the  blackest  Congo  as 
is  this  negro  to  Daniel  "Webster.  The  common  possession 
of  language  creates  a  wide  gulf  between  man  and  the  high- 
est of  the  other  animals.2 

The  chief  argument  in  favor  of  slavery  was  drawn  from 
the  Bible.  The  Mosaic  law  authorized  the  buying  and  hold- 
ing of  bondmen  and  bondmaids;  it  was  therefore  argued 
that  if  God's  chosen  people  were  not  only  permitted  but 
enjoined  to  possess  slaves,  slavery  must  certainly  be  an  in- 
stitution of  the  Deity.  Texts  of  approval  from  the  New 
Testament  were  more  difficult  to  find.  Although  slavery 
in  the  Koman  empire  was  an  obtrusive  fact,  Christ  was 
silent  on  the  subject.  The  apologists  of  slavery  made  the 
utmost  of  Paul's  exhortation  to  servants  to  obey  their  mas- 
ters ;  yet  of  all  the  writings  of  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles, 
the  one  of  chief  value  to  these  special  pleaders  was  his 
shortest  epistle.  It  was  used  as  a  triumphant  justification 
of  the  Fugitive  Slave  law.  Paul  sent  back  the  runaway 
slave  Onesimus  to  his  master  Philemon,  the  inclination  to 
retain  him  being  outweighed  by  the  justice  of  his  owner's 
claim.8 

The  most  weighty  scriptural  argument,  however,  was  that 


1  Studies  on  Slavery,  by  John  Fletcher,  p.  183.  This  book  had  reached 
the  fifth  thousand  when  the  Independent  noticed  it,  Aug.  26th,  1852. 

*  "  What  is  it  that  separates  mind  from  nature — that  gives  human  in- 
telligence an  existence  of  its  own,  distinguished  from  general  existence  ? 
...  Is  it  not  language  ?" — Religion  of  Philosophy,  Perrin,  p.  246. 

'  See  an  article  in  De  Bow's  Review,  entitled  Slavery  and  the  Bible, 
vol.  ix.  p.  281. 


CH.IV.]        SOUTHERN  DEFENCE  OF  SLAVERY          3^1 

based  on  the  curse  of  Canaan.  This  reasoning  had  been 
used  by  the  fathers  of  the  Christian  church,1  but  its  force 
was  vastly  greater  as  employed  to  justify  negro  slavery. 
It  seems  amazing  that  a  few  verses  of  a  chapter  of  Gen- 
esis should  be  sincerely  deemed  sufficient  warrant  for  the 
degradation  of  more  than  three  million  human  beings. 
The  unscientific  use  of  the  Bible  in  the  nineteenth  century 
to  defend  slavery  finds  a  striking  parallel  in  its  use  in  the 
seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries2  to  defend  the  belief 
in  witchcraft  against  the  attacks  of  science.  Jefferson 
Davis,  in  the  debate  upon  the  compromise  measures,  as- 
serted that  slavery  "  was  established  by  decree  of  Almighty 
God "  and  that  "  through  the  portal  of  slavery  alone  has 
the  descendant  of  the  graceless  son  of  Noah  ever  entered 
the  temple  of  civilization."3  The  persistence  with  which 
these  statements  were  made,  and  the  fact  that  they  were 
believed  in  good  faith,  gave  the  institution  a  rooted  strength 
which  it  could  not  have  gained  from  reasoning  based  only 
on  human  considerations.  When  doubts  of  the  right  to 
hold  slaves  would  rise  in  the  minds  of  religious  men  at  the 
South,  they  were  checked  by  the  thought  that  this  was  to 
question  the  mysterious  ways  of  an  inscrutable  Providence. 
Noah  had  said,  presumably  with  authority  from  on  high : 


1  See  Lecky's  Morals,  vol.  ii.  p.  70,  note. 

8  This  peculiar  use  of  the  biblical  narrative  was  a  characteristic  of  the 
decade  between  1850-60.  Horace  Mann,  whose  religious  ideas  were  lib- 
eral, said,  in  1853,  in  his  inaugural  address  at  Antioch  College,  that  it 
was  "  morally  impossible  for  God  to  have  created  in  the  beginning  such 
men  and  women  as  we  find  the  human  race  now  to  be."  He  appealed  to 
the  records  of  the  book  of  Genesis,  "  which  contains  the  earliest  annals 
of  the  human  family."  For  the  first  2369  years  "  not  a  single  instance  is 
recorded  of  a  child  born  blind,  or  deaf,  or  dumb,  or  idiotic,  or  malformed 
in  any  way !  .  .  .  Not  one  man  or  woman  died  of  disease.  .  .  .  No  chol- 
era infantum,  scarlatina,  measles,  small-pox — not  even  toothache!  So 
extraordinary  a  thing  was  it  for  a  son  to  die  before  his  father  that  an  in- 
stance of  it  is  deemed  worthy  of  special  notice." — New  York  Nation,  Aug. 
6th,  1891. 

*  Congressional  Globe,  vol.  xxii.  p.  153. 


372          SOUTHERN  DEFENCE  OF  SLAVERY        [Cs.IY. 

"  Cursed  be  Canaan  [the  son  of  Ham] ;  a  servant  of  ser- 
vants shall  he  be  unto  his  brethren."  Blessed  be  Shem,  and 
blessed  be  Japheth,  and  Canaan  shall  be  their  servant. 

Nor  was  the  influence  of  this  argument  confined  to  the 
South.  It  seemed  to  many  Christians  at  the  North  that  it 
was  flying  in  the  face  of  Providence  to  wish  a  change  in 
the  divinely  ordered  relation  of  master  and  slave  between 
the  descendant  of  Japheth  and  the  descendant  of  Ham. 
Stranger  yet  does  it  seem  to  us,  who  are  willing  to  accept 
the  conclusions  about  the  origin  of  race  which  have  been 
arrived  at  by  the  patient  and  brilliant  investigators  of  our 
day,  that  Emerson,  who  was  one  to  go  beyond  the  letter 
and  grasp  the  spirit,  should  have  been  so  profoundly  swayed 
by  the  Mosaic  explanation  of  the  blackness  of  the  negro. 
"  The  degradation  of  that  black  race,"  he  said,  "  though 
now  lost  in  the  starless  spaces  of  the  past,  did  not  come 
without  sin." ' 

But  the  biblical  argument  in  favor  of  slavery  did  not 
remain  unchallenged.  Between  1850  and  1860,  the  anti- 
slavery  people  received  large  accessions  from  Christian  min- 
isters and  teachers,  and  with  as  firm  faith  in  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  Bible  as  the  Southern  religionists,  they  took  up 
the  gauntlet  and  joined  issue  on  the  chosen  ground.  Whether 
the  Bible  and  the  Christian  religion  sanctioned  slavery,  was 
a  prominent  topic  in  the  joint  debates  that  were  held  in 
Northern  cities.  The  anti-slavery  literature  is  full  of  such 
discussions.  On  the  logical  point,  there  is  no  question  that 
the  Northern  reasoners  had  altogether  the  better  of  the 
argument."  The  spirit  of  Christianity  was  certainly  op- 
posed to  slavery ;  under  the  Roman  empire  it  had  amelior- 
ated the  condition  of  the  slaves,  and  during  the  middle  ages 


1  Memoir  of  Emerson,  Cabot,  p.  428. 

8  See  especially  Debate  between  Brownlow  and  Pryne,  and  Blanchard 
and  Rice ;  The  Church  and  Slavery,  by  Albert  Barnes.  For  the  refuta- 
tion of  the  Ham  argument,  from  the  Unitarian  point  of  view,  see  Life  of 
Parker,  Weiss,  vol.  ii.  p.  81. 


CH.IV.]  EUROPEAN  OPINIONS  373 

it  had  been  the  chief  influence  in  the  abolition  of  slavery 
in  Europe.1 

The  fact  that  the  slaves  had  their  material  wants  supplied 
and  were  without  anxiety  for  the  morrow  was  urged  with- 
out ceasing  as  one  of  the  benefits  of  the  system.  When 
Seward  visited  Virginia  he  was  told  that  they  were  the 
"happiest  people  in  the  world."2  Frederika  Bremer  was 
convinced  that  under  a  good  master  the  slaves  were  "  much 
better  provided  for  than  the  poor  working  people  in  many 
parts  of  Europe.5'  *  Lyell  quotes  the  observations  of  a  Scotch 
weaver  who  had  spent  several  weeks  on  cotton  plantations 
in  Alabama  and  Georgia,  and  who  asserted  that  he  had  not 
there  witnessed  one  fifth  of  the  real  suffering  he  had  seen  in 
manufacturing  establishments  in  Great  Britain.  This  agreed 
with  Lyell's  own  experience.4  Lady  Wortley  was  impressed 
by  the  fact  that  the  slaves  "  seemed  thoroughly  happy  and 
contented." 6  Mackay  was  convinced  that  the  slaves  were 
"  better  clad,  fed,  and  cared  for  than  the  agricultural  labor- 
ers of  Europe  or  the  slop  tailors  and  sempstresses  of  Lon- 
don and  Liverpool." '  Achille  Murat,  who  became  a  Florida 


1  See  Lecky's  History  of  Morals,  vol.  i.  pp.  70  and  76  ;  Macaulay's  His- 
tory of  England,  chap.  i.  *  Life  of  Seward,  vol.  i.  p.  779. 

»  Homes  of  the  New  World,  vol.  i.  p.  296. 

4  Second  Visit,  vol.  ii.  p.  78.  "  To  one  who  arrives  in  Georgia  direct 
from  Europe,  with  a  vivid  impression  on  his  mind  of  the  state  of  the 
peasantry  there  in  many  populous  regions,  their  ignorance,  intemperance, 
and  improvidence,  the  difficulty  of  obtaining  subsistence,  and  the  small 
chance  they  have  of  bettering  their  lot,  the  condition  of  the  black  labor- 
ers on  such  a  property  as  Hopeton  will  afford  but  small  ground  for  lam- 
entation or  despondency." — Ibid.,  vol.  i.  p.  262. 

The  women  "are  always  allowed  a  month's  rest  after  their  confine- 
ment, an  advantage  rarely  enjoyed  by  hard-working  English  peasants." 
—Ibid.,  p.  264 ;  see  also  Diary  of  a  Southern  Planter,  Smedes,  p.  78. 

•  Travels  in  the  United  States,  vol.  i.  p.  218. 

'  Life  and  Liberty  in  America,  vol.  i.  p.  311.  "The  general  condition 
of  the  Southern  slave  is  one  of  comparative  happiness  and  comfort,  such 
as  many  a  free  man  in  the  United  Kingdom  might  regard  with  envy." 
— London  Times,  Sept.  1st,  1852,  quoted  in  Notes  on  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin, 


374  EUROPEAN  OPINIONS  [CH.  IV. 

planter,  maintained  that  the  slaves  were  happier  than  the 
laborers  in  the  large  English  manufacturing  towns  and 
than  European  peasants  in  general ;  and  he  wrote  further 
that  slavery,  when  viewed  from  afar,  has  quite  a  different 
physiognomy  from  that  which  presents  itself  when  viewed 
on  the  spot ;  "  that  which  appears  rigorous  by  law  becomes 
lenient  by  custom." J 

The  opinions  of  these  foreign  travellers,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  Scotch  weaver  who  supported  himself  by  manual 
labor  and  only  saw  the  lower  society,  were  greatly  influ- 
enced by  the  generous  hospitality  of  Southern  gentlemen. 
Harriet  Martineau  had  found  that  hospitality  so  remarkable 
and  grateful  that  she  discerned  in  it  the  lurking  danger  of 
blinding  many  to  the  real  evils  of  slavery.  In  those  spacious 
country-houses  everything  was  so  "  gay  and  friendly,"  there 
was  "  such  a  prevailing  hilarity  and  kindness,"  that  one  for- 
got the  misery  on  which  this  open-handed  way  of  living  was 
based.8  The  liberality  and  heartiness  of  Southern  enter- 
tainments made  a  powerful  impression  on  Lyell,  who  has 
left  a  graceful  testimony  of  "  the  perfect  ease  and  politeness 
with  which  a  stranger  is  made  to  feel  himself  at  home." s 

The  character  in  which  the  slave-holding  lord  wished  to 
appear  to  the  world  is  well  illustrated  by  a  fanciful  account 
in  The  Southern  Literary  Journal  of  a  visit  by  a  nineteenth- 
century  Addison  to  Sir  Koger  de  Coverley's  plantation. 
The  Carolina  de  Coverley  is  described  as  having  all  the 
virtues  of  the  famous  English  knight,  whose  faithful  old  do- 
mestics, grown  gray-headed  in  the  service,  are  paralleled  by 


p.  74.  Ampere  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  the  lot  of  the  slaves  was 
not  very  hard  (see  tome  ii.  p.  142),  but  he  is  severe  on  those  who  attempt 
to  justify  slavery,  see  p.  148.  Thackeray  wrote  from  Richmond  in  1853 : 
"  The  negroes  don't  shock  me,  or  excite  my  compassionate  feelings  at  all ; 
they  are  so  grotesque  and  happy  that  I  can't  cry  over  them.  The  little 
black  imps  are  trotting  and  grinning  about  the  streets ;  women,  work- 
men, waiters,  all  well  fed  and  happy." — Letters,  p.  168. 

1  America  and  the  Americans,  pp.  67  and  77. 

*  Society  in  America,  vol.  i.  p.  229.  *  Second  Visit,  vol.  i.  p.  245. 


CH.IV.]  DENIAL  OF  FREE  SPEECH  AT  THE  SOUTH  375 

"healthy,  laughing,  contented"  negroes,  who  are  "comfort- 
ably provided  for,"  whose  "  sleep  is  sweet,"  and  who  "  care  not 
for  the  morrow."  The  devotion  of  the  ancient  servants  to 
the  English  Sir  Koger,  their  joyful  welcome  when  he  re- 
turned from  a  journey,  the  mixture  of  the  father  and  the 
master  of  the  family  in  his  conduct  to  his  dependants,  is 
likened  to  the  "  endearing  relation "  which  exists  between 
the  slaves  and  the  Carolina  lord.1  But  the  imitator  of  this 
most  graceful  of  sketches  unwisely  draws  beyond  the  lines 
of  his  model,  and  fouls  with  the  dark  blot  of  slavery  a 
bright  and  charming  picture  of  rural  life.  "  Cleanliness  is 
indispensable  to  health,"  says  Sir  Roger  de  Coverley  of 
Carolina,  "and  makes  the  slave  prolific.  I  have  at  this 
time  a  hundred  and  fifty  of  these  people ;  and  their  annual 
increase  may  be  estimated  as  adding  as  much  to  my  income 
as  arises  from  all  other  sources."  2  The  love  of  art  as  well 
as  the  love  of  liberty  would  have  prevented  Joseph  Addison 
from  putting  such  words  into  the  mouth  of  his  knight ;  for 
had  Sir  Roger  spoken  them,  he  would  have  been  no  longer 
the  old-fashioned  country  gentleman  of  high  honor  and  rare 
benevolence  that  remains  as  one  of  the  characteristic  crea- 
tions of  English  literature. 

A  well-known  result  of  slavery  was  the  denial  of  free 
speech  at  the  South.  While  Southern  advocates  of  the 
rightfulness  of  slavery  were  heard  willingly  at  the  North  in 
joint  debate,  or  from  the  lyceum  platform,  Garrison  and 
Parker  would  have  forfeited  their  lives  had  they  gone 
South  and  attempted  to  get  a  hearing.  The  circulation  of 
anti-slavery  newspapers  and  books  was  suppressed  as  far  as 
possible.  One  book,  however,  and  the  most  dangerous  of 


1  "  In  '  the  days  that  are  no  more,'  so  confiding  and  affectionate  was 
the  relation  of  the  master  and  the  slave,  and  we,  who  personally  loved 
many  of  them,  cannot  now  easily  become  reconciled  to  the  attitude  of 
alienation  in  which  the  negroes  stand  towards  us." — Mrs.  Davis  in  1890, 
Memoir  of  Jefferson  Davis,  vol.  i.  p.  311. 

1  Slave  States  of  America,  Buckingham,  vol.  i.  p.  60. 


376  FEAR  OF  SLAVE  RISINGS  [Cu.  IV. 

all,  found  many  readers.  The  desire  to  read  "  Uncle  Tom's 
Cabin"  was  too  great  to  be  crushed  by  the  usual  efforts  at 
repression.1 

It  must,  however,  be  confessed  that  reason  enough  existed 
for  the  denial  of  free  speech  and  a  free  press.  The  first  duty 
of  a  society  is  self-preservation.  Whether  or  not  the  danger 
of  slave  insurrections  was  great,  it  is  certain  that  the  fear  of 
them  was  real  and  ever  present.  u  I  speak  from  facts,"  said 
John  Kandolph, "  when  I  say  that  the  night  bell  never  tolls 
for  fire  in  Kichmond,  that  the  frightened  mother  does  not 
hug  her  infant  the  more  closely  to  her  bosom,  not  knowing 
what  may  have  happened.  I  have  myself  witnessed  some 
of  the  alarms  in  the  capital  of  Virginia." a  De  Tocqueville 
was  struck  by  the  inevitable  danger  of  a  struggle  between 
the  blacks  and  whites  in  the  slave  States.  While  he  found 
the  subject  discussed  freely  at  the  North,  it  was  ignored  at 
the  South ;  yet  the  tacit  foreboding  of  servile  insurrection 
in  that  community  seemed  more  dreadful  than  the  expressed 
fears  of  his  Northern  friends.8  Men  in  the  slave  States 
were  wont  to  deny  the  danger,4  but  Fanny  Kemble  testified 
that  all  Southern  women  to  whom  she  had  spoken  about  the 
matter  admitted  that  they  lived  in  terror  of  their  slaves.* 
Never  elsewhere  had  she  known  "  anything  like  the  pervad- 
ing timidity  of  tone,"  and  it  was  her  belief  that  the  slave- 


1  See  letter  of  Francis  Lieber,  Feb.  3d,  1853:  "Apropos  of  slavery:  Uncle 
Tom's  Cabin  sells  here  [in  Columbia,  S.  C.]  rapidly.  One  bookseller  tells 
me  that  he  cannot  supply  the  demand  with  sufficient  rapidity." — Life 
and  Letters,  p.  257 ;  see  also  Olmsted's  Cotton  Kingdom. 

8  House  of  Representatives,  Dec.,  1811. 

*  "  Dans  les  Etats  du  Sud,  on  se  tait ;  on  ne  parle  point  de  1'avenir  aux 
(strangers;  on  evite  de  s'en  expliquer  avec  ses  amis;  chacun  se  le  cache, 
pour  ainsi  dire,  a"  soi-mgme.    Le  silence  du  Sud  a  quelque  chose  de  plus 
effrayant  que  les  craintes  bruyantes  du  Nord." — De  la  Democratic  en 
Ainerique,  vol.  ii.  p.  334. 

4  See  Kemble,  p.  295 ;  Pro-slavery  Argument,  p.  74 ;  Society  in  Amer- 
ica, vol.  ii.  p.  120. 

•  See  Kemble,  p.  295. 


CH.IV.]  DESIRE  OF  SLAVES  FOR  FREEDOM  377 

holders  lived  in  a  "  perpetual  state  of  suspicion  and  appre- 
hension." l  Olmsted  saw  "more  direct  expression  of  tyran- 
ny in  a  single  day  and  night  at  Charleston  than  at  Naples, 
under  Bomba,  in  a  week."2  Mackay,  who  was  favorably 
disposed  towards  the  South,  was  impressed  with  the  surveil- 
lance, strict  as  martial  law,  to  which  the  negroes  were  sub- 
jected at  Charleston.3  Further  evidence  of  this  sort  need 
not  be  adduced.  The  legislation,  the  daily  conduct  of  the 
whites,  the  great  alarms  excited  by  slight  provocation,  go  to 
show  that  the  Roman  proverb,  "As  many  enemies  as  slaves," 
acquired  the  same  force  in  the  South  after  Nat  Turner  as  it 
had  in  Eome  after  the  revolt  of  Spartacus.4 

Even  had  the  material  condition  of  the  slaves  been  as 
good  as  the  apologists  of  slavery  were  in  the  habit  of  as- 
serting, the  eagerness  of  nearly  every  negro  for  liberty 
was  a  grave  indictment  of  the  system.  The  evidence  of 
this  is  so  overwhelming  that  the  statement  will  not  be  dis- 
puted. One  of  the  finest  touches  in  "  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin" 
is  the  joyful  expression  of  Uncle  Tom  when  told  by  his 
good  and  indulgent  master  that  he  should  be  set  free  and 
sent  back  to  his  old  home  in  Kentucky.  In  attributing  the 
common  desire  of  humanity  to  the  negro,  the  author  was  as 
faithful  as  she  was  effective. 


1  Kemble,  p.  268.  "  Ten  years  ago  an  eminent  Southern  statesman  told 
us  that  he  never  retired  to  rest  on  his  plantation  without  carefully  ex- 
amining his  pistols  and  rifle,  which  hung  by  his  bedside,  to  make  sure 
that  they  were  ready  for  instant  use;  and  a  mother  of  Virginia  told  us 
years  ago  that  if  accidentally  awakened  at  night  by  any  noise  in  the 
neighborhood,  her  first  impulse  was  one  of  terror  lest  it  should  proceed 
from  a  revolt  of  negroes." — New  York  Tribune,  1859. 

*  Cotton  Kingdom,  vol.  ii.  p.  350. 

*  Life  and  Liberty  in  America,  vol.  i.  p.  310;  see  also  Seaboard  Slave 
States,  p.  404.    Thackeray  wrote  from  Richmond  in  1853  :  "  Crowe  has 
just  come  out  from  what  might  have  been  and  may  be  yet  a  dreadful 
scrape.    He  went  into  a  slave-market  and  began  sketching ;  and  the  peo- 
ple rushed  on  him  savagely  and  obliged  him  to  quit." — Letters,  p.  168. 

*  See  account  of  Henry  S.  Foote  of  excitement  in  Central  Mississippi 
in  1835,  Casket  of  Reminiscences,  p.  250  et  seq. 


378  FUGITIVE  SLAVES  [CH.IV. 

A  good  deal  of  currency  was  given  to  stories  of  slaves 
who  escaped  and  afterwards  came  to  their  old  masters  and 
voluntarily  surrendered  themselves.1  Clay  grew  eloquent 
when  he  told  of  a  slave  in  his  own  family,  who,  having  been 
enticed  away,  "  addressed  her  mistress,  and  begged  and  im- 
plored of  her  the  means  of  getting  back  from  the  state  of 
freedom,  to  which  she  had  been  seduced,  to  the  state  of  slav- 
ery, in  which  she  was  so  much  more  happy." 2  There  is  no 
doubt  that  similar  instances  occurred,  but  the  very  promi- 
nence given  to  isolated  cases  shows  that  they  were  the  ex- 
ceptions and  not  the  rule.  The  small  number  of  fugitive 
slaves  was  sometimes  urged  to  show  that  the  dissatisfaction 
with  the  servile  condition  was  not  general.  Only  about  one 
thousand  negroes  escaped  yearly  into  the  free  States,  and 
only  about  two  thousand  were  annually  manumitted.3  Yet 
this  argument  was  fallacious.  The  count  of  fugitives  who 
reached  the  North  cannot  be  held  to  cover  the  number  of 
negroes  who  escaped  from  their  masters.  In  the  cotton 
States  the  chance  of  getting  to  the  land  of  freedom  was 
small,  yet  slaves  frequently  ran  away ;  they  were  often 
caught  alive  by  the  dogs,  occasionally  shot,  and  sometimes 
they  remained  for  months  in  the  swamps,  or  in  mountain- 
ous regions  kept  secreted  among  the  hills.4 

The  number  of  all  sorts  of  fugitives,  however,  was  small 
compared  with  the  negroes  who  yearned  for  freedom,  but, 
owing  to  insurmountable  obstacles,  were  deterred  from  mak- 
ing the  attempt.  Frederick  Douglass,  one  of  the  brightest 
and  most  intelligent  of  slaves,  held  ideas  of  geography  so 
vague  and  indistinct  that  the  eastern  shore  of  Maryland, 


1  See  Retrospect  of  Western  Travel,  vol.  i.  p.  242. 

*  Speech  on  the  compromise  resolutions,  Last  Years  of  Henry  Clay, 
p.  330. 

3  The  number  of  fugitives  escaping  into  the  free  States  in  1850  was 
1011,  or  one  in  each  3165  held  in  bondage ;  in  1860,  803,  or  one  to  about 
5000.  Twenty  thousand  slaves  were  supposed  to  have  been  manumitted 
between  1850  and  1860.  United  States  Census  Report. 

*  See  Cotton  Kingdom,  under  "  Runaway  Slaves." 


CH.IV.]  THE  SOUTHERN  MEN  379 

where  he  wrought  as  a  bondman,  seemed  a  vast  distance 
from  Pennsylvania ;  and  his  description  of  the  barriers 
that  lay  in  the  way  of  eager  fugitives  is  a  sufficient  explana- 
tion of  why  their  number  was  so  small.1  The  vilest  and 
most  ignorant  of  slaves  in  the  cotton  States  knew  that  free- 
dom was  in  the  direction  of  the  north  star ;  the  wisest  of 
them  knew  little  more,  except  that  the  distance  was  great 
and  that  the  route  lay  through  a  country  where  everybody 
kept  on  the  watch,  and  where  their  color  itself  was  a  grave 
object  of  suspicion. 

What  will  the  judgment  of  history  be  on  the  Southern 
men  ?  Must  not  coming  ages  ratify  the  opinion  of  the  mor- 
alist and  the  philosopher  who  lived  in  slave  times,  who  loved 
liberty  and  yet  were  able  to  take  a  charitable  view  ?  "  Slav- 
ery is  the  calamity  of  our  Southern  brethren,  and  not  their 
crime,"  wrote  Channing.3  "  The  misfortune  of  the  planter," 
said  Emerson,  "  is  at  least  as  great  as  his  sin." 3  Least  of  all 
may  the  North  or  England  cast  a  stone  at  the  South,  for 
each  had  a  hand  in  the  establishing  of  negro  slavery.  Yet 
it  does  not  follow  that  the  Southern  men  of  the  generation 
before  the  war  can  plead  innocence  at  the  judgment  bar  of 
history.  They  may  be  arraigned  for  taking  steps  backward 
from  the  position  held  by  the  leaders  of  Southern  opinion 
when  the  Constitution  was  framed.  Jefferson  made  an  effort 
to  abolish  slavery  in  his  own  State.  It  is  true  he  might  have 
done  more ;  and  he  was  subject  to  the  influence  of  his  environ- 
ment to  the  extent  that,  in  his  later  years,  he  found  a  palliation 
of  slavery  which  his  pen  would  have  refused  to  record  in  the 
days  when  he  wrote  the  Declaration  of  Independence. 

Jefferson,  and  the  great  Virginians  who  were  associated 
with  him,  freed  a  country  and  established  a  nation.  Is  it 
not  asking  too  much  that  they  should  have  solved  the  social 
question  and  freed  a  race  ?  Yet  that  was  the  duty  of  the 
generation  which  succeeded.  Calhoun  was  the  intellectual 


Life  of  Douglass,  p.  159. 

Webster's  Works,  vol.  v.  p.  367.       3  Life  of  Emerson,  Cabot,  p.  426. 


380  CALHOUN  AND  JEFFERSON  DAVIS  [On.  IV. 

heir  of  Jefferson,1  and  if  he  had  continued  to  hold  the  nation- 
al views  with  which  he  started  in  public  life,  he  might  have 
done  much  to  shatter  the  system  that  he  consecrated  his 
later  years  to  uphold.8  The  mantle  of  Calhoun  fell  on  Jef- 
ferson Davis,  who  translated  into  action  the  logic  of  his 
master.  The  judgment  of  posterity  is  made  up :  it  was  an 
unrighteous  cause  which  the  South  defended  by  arms ;  and 
at  the  tribunal  of  modern  civilization,  Calhoun  and  Davis 
must  be  held  accountable  for  the  misery  which  resulted 
from  this  appeal  to  the  sword. 

It  is  true  that  had  Calhoun  espoused  the  cause  of  free- 
dom, his  influence  would  have  been  less ;  he  would  not  have 
been  idolized  as  the  Southern  hero  and  have  received  the  af- 
fectionate devotion  of  his  aristocratic  order.3  Calhoun  and 
Davis  were  leaders  because  in  them  the  feelings  of  the  South- 
ern oligarchy  fonnd  the  ablest  expression.  It  is  therefore 
fitting  that  the  judgment  which  is  meted  out  to  the  South- 
ern leaders  should  be  shared  by  their  followers  who  failed 
to  grapple  with  the  problem  sincerely  and  boldly,  and  fore- 
most of  these  were  the  slave-holding  lords.  The  smaller 
proprietors,  who  imitated  their  betters,  were  not  guiltless; 
but  the  most  lenient  judgment  should  fall  upon  the  poor 
whites,  who  were  hoodwinked  into  fighting  for  a  cause 
which,  though  deemed  holy,  was  in  reality  an  instrument 
in  their  own  degradation.  Yet,  while  making  these  reflec- 
tions, the  historian  cannot  forget  that  in  the  heat  of  the 
conflict  the  great  leader  could  say :  "  Both  [the  North  and 


'This  is  pointed  out  by  Henry  Adams.  "A  radical  democrat,  less 
liberal,  less  cultivated,  and  much  less  genial  than  Jefferson,  Calhoun  was 
the  true  heir  to  his  intellectual  succession."  —  History  of  the  United 
States,  vol.  i.  p.  154. 

*  Harriet  Martineau  has  an  interesting  passage  on  Calhoun,  Retro- 
spect, vol.  i.  p.  241 ;  see  also  conversation  between  Calhoun  and  John 
Quincy  Adams,  March,  1820,  Memoirs  of  J.  Q.  Adams,  vol.  v.  p.  10. 

*  "  Calhoun  sways  South  Carolina  by  pampering  her  vanity." — Francii 
Lieber,  Life  and  Letters,  p.  171. 


CH.  IV.]  REFLECTIONS  381 

the  South]  read  the  same  Bible  and  pray  to  the  same  God. 
It  may  seem  strange  that  any  men  should  dare  to  ask  a  just 
God's  assistance  in  wringing  their  bread  from  the  sweat  of 
other  men's  faces;  but  let  us  judge  not,  that  we  be  not 
judged."  '  Nor,  if  we  suppose  the  Puritan  to  have  settled 
Virginia  and  the  Cavalier  Massachusetts,  it  is  not  incon- 
ceivable that,  while  the  question  would  have  remained  the 
same,  the  Puritan  should  have  fought  for  slavery  and  the 
Cavalier  for  liberty. 

Then,  too,  it  may  be  that  the  peculiar  institution  was  so 
interwoven  with  the  political  and  social  life  of  the  South, 
that  to  inaugurate  a  movement  there  which  should  result  in 
the  abolition  of  slavery  might  have  required  a  genius  by  the 
side  of  whom  Calhoun  and  Davis  would  seem  intellectual 
pygmies.  The  mighty  Caesar,  the  sovereign  ruler,  although 
convinced  of  the  evil  of  large  slave  estates,  did  not  venture 
to  assail  the  practice  of  slavery  in  Rome.  Our  civilization 
is  certainly  superior  in  the  virtue  of  humanity  to  that  of  the 
ancient  world  in  the  time  of  Caesar,  and  a  man  as  able  and 
energetic  as  the  Roman  imperator  might,  under  republican 
forms,  have  worked  out  the  salvation  of  the  South. 

But  one  is  struck  by  the  absence  of  any  well-directed  ef- 
fort towards  the  abolition  of  slavery.  Nor  were  the  slave 
States  willing  to  entertain  any  plan  involving  emancipation 
with  compensation.8  No  doubt  whatever  exists  that  the 
moral  sentiment  of  the  North  would  have  favored  employ- 
ing the  treasure  and  credit  of  the  general  government  to  pay 
for  the  slaves,  had  the  Southern  owners  been  willing  to 
emancipate  them  ;9  and  while  such  a  course  was  not  without 
practical  and  political  difficulties,  these  were  by  no  means 
insuperable.  Yet  no  such  project  was  entertained;  for 
even  had  the  North  made  such  an  offer,  it  would  have  been 
spurned  by  the  South.  The  Colonization  Society,  whose 
object  was  to  remove  the  negroes  to  Africa  and  colonize 

1  From  President  Lincoln's  second  inaugural. 

9  See  Seward's  Works,  vol.  i.  p.  87. 

*  See  Emerson's  speech,  1855,  Cabot,  p.  593. 


882  REFLECTIONS  [On.  IV. 

them  at  Liberia,  undoubtedly  proved  a  salve  to  the  tender 
consciences  of  many ;  but  as  a  means  of  putting  an  end  to 
the  evil,  its  operations  were  a  fit  subject  of  ridicule.  Garri- 
son charged  that  seven  times  as  many  slaves  were  annually 
smuggled  into  the  South  as  had  been  transported  to  Africa 
in  fifteen  years  by  the  Colonization  Society.1 

The  Southern  lord  would  not  make  the  sacrifice  of  his 
ease  to  examine  the  question  honestly.  Lyell,  who  was  in- 
clined to  be  partial  to  the  South,  was  of  the  opinion  that 
steps  ought  long  ago  to  have  been  taken  towards  the  grad- 
ual emancipation  of  the  slaves.5  Jefferson  Davis  and  his 
fellow-planters,  who  were  fond  of  books  and  delighted  in  the 
study  of  ancient  history,  might  have  read  in  the  year  1857 
an  impressive  lesson ;  and  had  their  minds  been  open  to  the 
reception  of  the  truth,  the  words  of  Mommsen  would  have 
appeared  to  them  the  highest  philosophy ;  for  he  furnished 
an  example  of  a  social  system  strikingly  similar  to  that  the 
Southern  lords  extolled ;  he  drew  the  parallel  and  let  the 
consequence  be  seen.  "  Eiches  and  misery,"  wrote  the  his- 
torian of  Kome,  "  in  close  league  drove  the  Italians  out  of 
Italy,  and  filled  the  Peninsula  partly  with  swarms  of  slaves, 
partly  with  awful  silence.  It  is  a  terrible  picture,  but  not 
one  peculiar  to  Italy ;  whenever  the  government  of  capital- 
ists in  a  slave  State  has  fully  developed  itself,  it  has  deso- 
lated God's  fair  world  in  the  same  way.  .  .  .  All  the  arrant 
sins  that  capital  has  been  guilty  of  against  nation  and  civil- 


1  Life  of  Garrison,  vol.  i.  p.  295.  "  Mr.  Madison,  the  president  of  the 
colonization  society,  gave  me  his  favorable  views  of  it.  Mr.  Clay,  the 
vice-president,  gave  me  his.  So  did  almost  every  clergyman  and  other 
member  of  society  whom  I  met  for  some  months.  .  .  .  But  I  am  firmly 
persuaded  that  any  clear-headed  man,  shutting  himself  up  in  his  closet 
for  a  day's  study  of  the  question,  .  .  .  can  come  to  no  other  conclusion 
than  that  the  scheme  of  transporting  the  colored  population  of  the  United 
States  to  the  coast  of  Africa  is  absolutely  absurd ;  and  if  it  were  not  so, 
would  be  absolutely  pernicious." — H.  Martineau,  Society  in  America, 
vol.  i.  p.  346.  "  It  is  a  tub  thrown  to  the  whale."— Ibid.,  p.  349. 

•  LyelTs  Second  Visit,  vol.  i.  p.  208. 


OH.  IV.]  REFLECTIONS  383 

ization  in  the  modern  world  remain  as  far  inferior  to  the 
abomination  of  the  ancient  capitalist  States  as  the  free  man, 
be  he  ever  so  poor,  remains  superior  to  the  slave ;  and  not 
until  the  dragon-seed  of.  North  America  ripens  will  the 
world  have  again  similar  fruits  to  reap." * 

When  the  war  ended  with  the  abolition  of  slavery,  the 
general  opinion  at  the  North  was  that  the  negro  question 
was  settled.  This  was  an  illusion ;  yet  no  one  fully  conver- 
sant with  the  literature  of  slavery  in  the  decade  of  1850-60, 
and  with  the  literature  of  the  race  question  at  the  present 
time,  can  doubt  that  the  negro  problem  was  a  graver  one 
in  1850  than  it  is  in  1892.  This  the  historian  may  affirm 
with  confidence  and  yet  feel  the  seriousness  of  the  present 
situation,  which  demands  the  wisdom  of  action  on  the  part 
of  the  South,  and  the  wisdom  of  forbearance  on  the  part  of 
the  North.  The  North  better  than  ever  before  appreciates 
the  feeling  that  induced  Madison,  in  the  closing  years  of  his 
useful  life,  to  give  vent  to  the  ardent  wish  that  he  might  be 
able  to  work  a  miracle ;  were  that  power  given  him,  he  would 
make  all  the  negroes  white,  for  then  he  could  in  one  day 
abolish  slavery.8 


1  Vol.  iv.  p.  621. 

5  See  Society  in  America,  Martirieau,  vol.  i.  p.  382.  On  the  subject  of 
this  chapter  generally,  see  article  in  the  Andover  Review,  Aug.,  1891,  en- 
titled "  Slavery  as  Seen  by  a  Northern  Man  in  1844,"  by  A.  P.  Peabody. 

I  desire  here  to  acknowledge  my  obligations  to  my  friend  Raymond  S. 
Perrin,  who  read  with  me  a  large  portion  of  the  manuscript  of  this  work, 
and  to  whom  I  am  indebted  for  valuable  suggestions.  And  I  wish  to 
mention  the  assistance  received  from  my  friend  Professor  Bourne,  of 
Adelbert  College,  who  read  carefully  the  whole  manuscript,  and  gave  me 
the  benefit  of  his  historical  knowledge  and  literary  criticism. 


CHAPTER  V 

FRANKLIN  PIERCE,  the  youngest  man  who  up  to  this  time 
had  taken  the  presidential  oath,  was  inaugurated  March  4th, 
1853.  The  ceremony  was  more  imposing  than  usual,  and 
was  witnessed  by  the  largest  number  of  strangers  who  had 
ever  gathered  in  Washington  to  assist  at  the  installation  of  a 
new  chief  magistrate.  "When  he  took  the  oath  he  did  not,  as 
is  ordinary,  use  the  word  "  swear,"  but  accepted  the  consti- 
tutional alternative  which  permitted  him  to  affirm  that  he 
would  faithfully  execute  the  office  of  President  of  the  United 
States.  Nor  did  he  kiss  the  book,  after  the  Southern  fash- 
ion, but  laid  his  left  hand  upon  the  Bible  and  held  his  right 
hand  aloft,  having  previously  bared  his  head  to  the  falling 
snow.  He  did  not  read  the  address,  but  spoke  without  man- 
uscript or  notes  in  a  clear  and  distinct  voice,  with  a  graceful 
manner.  The  inaugural  was  a  well-turned  literary  composi- 
tion, delivered  by  an  effective  speaker,  and  made  a  striking 
impression  upon  the  many  auditors.1  He  began :  "  My  coun- 
trymen !  It  is  a  relief  to  feel  that  no  heart  but  my  own  can 
know  the  personal  regret  and  bitter  sorrow  over  which  I 
have  been  borne  to  a  position  so  suitable  for  others  rather 
than  desirable  for  myself."  This  was  an  allusion  to  the 
sudden  taking-away  of  his  only  living  child,  a  bright  boy  of 
thirteen,  by  a  railroad  accident  which  happened  in  the  early 
part  of  January.  The  boy,  to  whom  Pierce  was  devotedly 
attached,  was  travelling  with  his  father  and  mother,  when 
his  brains  were  dashed  out  before  their  eyes.  Some  Whig 
journals  criticised  this  allusion  as  being  a  trick  of  the  orator 


New  York  Herald,  March  5th,  1853 ;  National  Intelligencer. 


CH.V.]  INAUGURATION  OF  PIERCE  385 

to  awaken  personal  interest  before  proceeding  to  unfold 
his  public  policy ;  but  the  people  who  heard  the  words  felt 
only  sympathy  for  the  handsome  young  President  who  thus 
frankly  disclosed  his  private  grief,  knowing  that  he  would 
gladly  resign  the  most  glittering  of  earthly  prizes  if  only 
his  son  might  have  been  restored  to  him. 

The  President  hinted  strongly  that  during  his  term  of 
office  it  might  be  his  part  to  add  Cuba  to  the  common  coun- 
try. "  The  policy  of  my  administration,"  he  said,  "  will  not 
be  controlled  by  any  timid  forebodings  of  evil  from  expan- 
sion. Indeed,  it  is  not  to  be  disguised  that  our  attitude  as 
a  nation,  and  our  position  on  the  globe,  render  the  acquisi- 
tion of  certain  possessions,  not  within  our  jurisdiction,  emi- 
nently important  for  our  protection." 

He  affirmed  the  principle  of  the  Monroe  doctrine.  He  in- 
timated that  the  Whigs  should  be  turned  out  of  the  offices 
to  make  room  for  Democrats.  Yet  he  was  not  hampered 
by  promises  made  before  nomination  or  election ;  he  had  no 
"  implied  engagements  to  ratify,"  so  that  in  the  disposal  of 
patronage  he  should  not  be  subject  to  the  dictation  of  the 
politicians.  "  I  acknowledge,"  he  declared,  "  my  obligations 
to  the  masses  of  my  countrymen,  and  to  them  alone." 

He  made  a  vigorous  appeal  for  the  Union,  holding  that 
the  compromise  measures  of  1850  were  strictly  constitu- 
tional, and  should  be  "  unhesitatingly  carried  into  effect." 
While  the  Fugitive  Slave  act  was  not  mentioned  by  name, 
everybody  knew  that  this  expression  meant  that  the  Pres- 
ident Would  vigorously  enforce  that  law,  as  it  was  the  only 
part  of  the  compromise  on  which  executive  action  was  now 
needed. 

The  enthusiastic  cheers  and  noise  of  the  cannon  which 
greeted  the  President  when  he  closed  his  address  was  typi- 
cal of  the  joy  of  Democrats  all  over  the  country  on  their 
restoration  to  power.  In  truth,  they  had  always  felt,  since 
the  first  election  of  Jackson,  that  the  duty  of  administering 
the  government  belonged  rightfully  to  them,  and  that  in  their 
hands  only  were  the  interests  of  the  whole  people  properly 
I.— 25 


386  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1858 

protected.  Aristocratic  cabals  and  money  combinations  cer- 
tainly fared  better  at  the  hands  of  the  Whigs,  but  a  party 
whose  support  was  largely  derived  from  those  elements  did 
not,  the  Democrats  thought,  deserve  popular  success.  The 
Whigs  had  twice  elected  a  President,  but  it  was  by  means 
of  the  trick  of  playing  upon  the  universal  fancy  for  mili- 
tary prestige.  It  was  now  the  general  Democratic  feeling 
that  the  installation  of  Pierce  into  office  was  a  restoration 
simply  of  the  power  and  patronage  justly  due  the  Demo- 
crats. 

The  inaugural  was  well  received ;  it  was  generally  satis- 
factory to  the  business  interests.  The  disposition  always 
exists  on  the  part  of  the  successful  party  to  hail  their  new 
chief  as  a  paragon  of  wisdom  or  virtue ;  nor,  in  the  first  days 
of  the  administration,  do  the  defeated  party  bear  rancor, 
but  are  willing  to  look  on  with  charity,  feeling  that  the  new 
President  deserves  a  fair  chance.  Especially  was  this  the 
case  when  Franklin  Pierce  took  the  reins  of  government. 
He  was  very  popular  on  election  day,  and  so  overpowering 
had  been  his  success  that  he  was  still  more  popular  on  the 
day  of  his  inauguration.  If  the  general  acclaim  augured 
well  for  the  prosperity  of  the  new  administration,  few  Pres- 
idents have  started  with  auspices  so  favorable.  Yet  the 
anti-slavery  Whigs,  and  a  few  anti-slavery  Democrats  whose 
principles  were  stronger  than  their  desire  to  see  the  old 
party  cemented,  could  not  but  tremble  for  their  country 
when  they  saw  in  this  cautious  exposition  of  principle  and 
announcement  of  programme  that  the  President,  whose  hold 
on  the  people  was  apparently  so  powerful,  did  not  regard 
human  slavery  as  an  evil,  but  was  anxious  to  acquire  more 
slave  territory.  It  did  not  allay  their  apprehensions  when 
he  said  that  the  new  territory  should  be  obtained  "  with  a 
view  to  obvious  national  interest  and  security,  and  in  a  man- 
ner entirely  consistent  with  the  strictest  observance  of  na- 
tional faith ;"  for  the  intrigue  by  which  Texas  was  annexed 
was  too  fresh  in  their  minds.  It  was  patent  that  the  South- 
ern men  who  composed  the  slavery  propaganda,  while  strict- 


CH.V.J  FORMATION  OF  THE  CABINET  387 

ly  honorable  in  private  life,  were  ready  to  use  any  means  to 
extend  the  influence  of  their  dear  institution.  It  was  a 
prime  article  of  Southern  faith  that  Texas  had  been  honor- 
ably acquired ;  and  if  one  were  a  true  Democrat,  he  must 
believe  the  war  with  Mexico  to  have  been  just  and  holy. 

A  mere  reading  of  the  inaugural  was  sufficient  to  give 
rise  to  a  suspicion  that  in  President  Pierce  the  Southern 
leaders  had  found  a  man  who  would  do  their  bidding  ;  but 
had  one  known  what  was  going  on  in  the  inner  coun- 
cils of  the  party,  the  feeling  would  have  been  more  than  a 
suspicion.  In  the  month  following  the  election,  Pierce  had 
written  a  letter  to  Buchanan  asking  suggestions  and  advice, 
to  which  the  Pennsylvania  statesman  was  glad  to  respond 
fully  and  freely.  He  pointed  out  where  lay  the  path  of 
glory.  "  The  foreign  affairs  of  the  government,"  he  wrote, 
"  and  especially  the  question  of  Cuba,  will  occupy  the  most 
conspicuous  place  in  your  administration.  I  believe  that 
Cuba  can  be  acquired  by  cession  upon  honorable  terms, 
and  I  should  not  desire  to  acquire  it  in  any  other  manner. 
The  President  who  shall  accomplish  this  object  will  render 
his  name  illustrious,  and  place  it  on  the  same  level  with 
that  of  his  great  predecessor,  who  gave  Louisiana  to  the 
Union." ' 

Pierce,  shortly  after  his  election,  sent  a  message  to  John 
A.  Dix,  of  New  York,  requesting  a  personal  interview. 
When  Dix  repaired  to  Concord  he  was  offered,  in  the  most 
cordial  manner,  the  position  of  Secretary  of  State  under  the 
new  administration,  the  President-elect  assuring  him  that  he 
was  the  man  of  all  others  whose  presence  in  the  cabinet 
would  be  especially  desirable  and  gratifying.  But  when 
this  became  known  to  the  party  leaders,  the  extreme  South- 
ern politicians  and  the  pro-slavery  New  York  Democrats 
protested  earnestly  against  the  appointment,  on  account  of 
Dix's  connection  with  the  Free-soil  party  in  1848,  when  he 
had  been  their  candidate  for  governor.  Thereupon  a  second 


1  Life  of  Buchanan,  G.  T.  Curtis,  vol.  ii.  p.  72. 


388  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1853 

interview  between  Pierce  and  Dix  took  place,  and,  as  it  was 
quite  evident  that  the  President-elect  desired  to  be  relieved 
of  his  obligation,  Dix  at  once  released  him.1 

Far  different  was  the  treatment  of  Jefferson  Davis,  who 
early  received  an  offer  of  the  position  of  Secretary  of  War. 
He  at  first  declined  the  appointment,2  but  Pierce  was  so 
earnest  in  his  solicitations  that  Davis  came  to  Washington 
the  day  after  the  inauguration,  and  was  finally  prevailed 
upon  to  accept  the  position.3  This  appointment,  highly 
satisfactory  to  the  Southern  states-rights  men,  and  in  the 
main  agreeable  to  the  South,  was  particularly  distasteful  to 
the  Union  party  in  Mississippi.4  One  frequently  heard  the 
remark  at  the  North  that  Davis  was  the  only  member  of 
the  cabinet  who  had  opposed  the  compromise  measures  of 
1850.  The  difference  in  the  treatment  of  Dix  and  of  Davis, 
both  of  whom  had  similar  personal  claims  on  Pierce,  was 
evidence  that  the  extreme  Southern  faction  of  the  party 
would  receive  more  consideration  than  the  Northern  Dem- 
ocrats who  were  tinctured  with  Free-soilism. 

The  cabinet  nominations  were  not  sent  to  the  Senate  until 
three  days  after  the  inauguration.  The  President  appointed 
William  L.  Marcy,  of  New  York,  Secretary  of  State ;  James 
Guthrie,  of  Kentucky,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury ;  Jefferson 
Davis,  of  Mississippi,  Secretary  of  War ;  James  C.  Dobbin, 
of  North  Carolina,  Secretary  of  the  Navy ;  Kobert  McClel- 
land, of  Michigan,  Secretary  of  the  Interior ;  James  Camp- 
bell, of  Pennsylvania,  Postmaster-General ;  and  Caleb  Gush- 
ing, of  Massachusetts,  Attorney-General. 

The  courteous  action  of  Dix  in  permitting  Pierce  to  re- 
tract the  offer  of  the  State  portfolio  did  not  relieve  him 
of  all  embarrassment  in  regard  to  the  leading  position  in 


1  Life  of  J.  A.  Dix,  by  Morgan  Dix,  vol.  i.  p.  271. 
a  Davis's  wife  urged  him  to  decline  the  offer.    Memoir  of  Jefferson  Davis, 
by  his  wife,  vol.  i.  p.  476. 

•  Life  of  Jefferson  Davis,  Alfriend,  p.  89. 

*  Casket  of  Reminiscences,  Foote,  p.  90, 


CH.Y.]  FORMATION  OF  THE  CABINET  389 

the  cabinet.  Desirous  of  giving  this  place  to  a  New  York 
man,  he  was  perplexed  by  the  bitter  factional  contest  among 
the  Democrats  of  that  State.  Although  all  differences  had 
been  sunk  during  the  Presidential  canvass,  the  split  which 
started  in  1848  opened  again  as  soon  as  the  party  gained 
the  signal  victory,  and,  while  no  principle  seemed  to  be  at 
stake,  the  fight  was  earnest  for  proper  recognition  in  the 
distribution  of  the  offices.  It  is  undeniable  that  a  few 
among  those  who  were  called  Free-soilers  remained  true  to 
their  former  declarations ;  but  most  of  them  were  becoming 
merged  in  the  faction  called  "  Softs,"  whose  endeavor  was 
to  unite  the  jarring  elements  of  the  party  in  order  to  con- 
trol elections,  and  who  after  1848  became  the  link  of  con- 
nection between  the  Free-soilers  and  the  "  Hunkers "  or 
"  Hards,"  as  the  regular  Democrats  were  called.1  Dix  was 
a  "  Soft,"  with  Free-soil  antecedents ;  while  Marcy,  though 
the  chief  of  the  "  Softs,"  had  been  directly  opposed  to  the 
Free-soil  movement.  To  satisfy  the  greatest  number  was  the 
aim  of  the  President,  to  whom  this  problem  became  the  sub- 
ject of  serious  thoughts  and  many  councils ;  and  although  the 
whole  cabinet,  as  finally  announced,  was  published  in  the  news- 
papers one  week  before  the  inauguration,8  Pierce  did  not 
really  decide  who  should  be  his  Secretary  of  State  until  he 
had  actually  been  one  day  in  office,  for  up  to  the  morning 
of  March  5th  that  portfolio  had  not  been  offered  to  Marcy.* 

Marcy  was  the  best-known  man  in  the  cabinet ;  he  was  an 
adroit  politician ;  his  intellectual  qualities  were  solid  rather 
than  brilliant,  but  he  had  a  strong  mind  and  honest  pur- 
poses. Jefferson  Davis  and  Caleb  Gushing  also  brought  to 
the  council  board  talents  of  a  high  order. 

The  first  appearance  of  Davis  in  national  public  life  was 


1  The  distinction  is  well  described  in  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power, 
vol.  ii.  p.  141 ;  see  also  Dickinson's  Letters  and  Speeches,  vol.  i.  p.  394. 

1  New  York  Herald,  Feb.  25th. 

3  See  Letter  of  Marcy  to  Buchanan,  Washington,  March  5th,  1853,  Life 
of  Buchanan,  Curtis,  vol.  ii.  p.  75. 


390  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1863 

m  the  House  of  Bepresentatives  at  the  age  ot  thirty-seven. 
He  was  fortunate  in  having  a  liberal  training  that  made  him 
well  fitted  for  the  political  arena.  A  graduate  of  West 
Point,  he  had  served  as  lieutenant  in  the  Blackhawk  and 
other  Indian  wars.  He  then  resigned  his  commission  and 
for  eight  years,  from  the  age  of  twenty-seven  to  thirty-five, 
he  lived  in  retirement  on  his  cotton  plantation,  superintend- 
ing the  work  in  the  manner  common  to  the  Southern  plant- 
er, but  for  the  most  part  devoting  himself  to  a  systematic 
course  of  reading  and  study,  for  which  his  taste  amounted 
to  a  passion.  "When  he  quitted  the  life  of  a  recluse  to  en- 
gage in  the  affairs  of  State  he  was  a  man  of  culture,  well 
read  in  the  classical  writers  of  England,  and  deeply  versed  in 
political  history  and  political  economy. 

His  maiden  speech  in  the  House  of  Kepresentatives  at- 
tracted the  attention  of  John  Quincy  Adams,  who  said: 
"  That  young  man  is  no  ordinary  man.  He  will  make  his 
mark  yet,  mind  me." 

Davis  served  as  colonel  in  the  Mexican  war.  His  admir- 
ers asserted  that  his  brilliant  movement  at  Buena  Yista  car- 
ried the  day,  and  that  his  tactical  conception  was  worthy  of 
a  Caesar  or  a  Napoleon.  He  was  afterwards  United  States 
senator  for  four  years,  resigning  the  position  in  1851  to 
make  the  contest  for  governor  of  Mississippi  as  state-rights 
candidate  against  Foote,  who  led  the  Union  party.1  After 
his  defeat  he  remained  in  private  life  until  called  forth  by 
Pierce,  with  whom  he  held  friendly  personal  relations.  He 
was  now  in  his  forty-fifth  year,  and  one  could  see  that  he  was 
gradually  reaching  the  position  to  which  he  aspired — a  posi- 
tion which  by  1860  he  attained — that  of  leader  of  the  South- 
ern people,  and  successor  of  John  C.  Calhoun.8 

Gushing  owed  his  appointment  primarily  to  the  fact  that 


1  See  p.  226. 

8  In  this  characterization  of  Davis  I  have  used  Life  of  Davis,  by  Alfriend : 
Life  of  Davis,  by  Pollard ;  Our  Living  Representative  Men,  by  John  Sav- 
age. 


CH.V.]  CALEB  GUSHING  391 

he  was  one  of  the  New  England  politicians  who  had  striven 
to  bring  about  the  nomination  of  Pierce ;  moreover,  the 
President-elect,  himself  an  educated  man,  was  not  unwilling 
to  make  known  to  the  country  that  all  the  scholars  did  not 
belong  to  the  Whig  party.  That  steadfast  Whig  State,  Mas- 
sachusetts, furnished  the  scholar  of  the  cabinet  for  Pierce,  as 
she  had  likewise  done  for  Polk. 

Gushing  was  one  of  those  men  who  seem  to  have  taken 
all  knowledge  for  their  province.  Scholar,  author,  lawyer, 
statesman,  diplomatist,  general,  and  judge,  in  at  least  four 
of  these  callings  he  achieved  distinction.  "  I  started  from 
the  same  point,"  he  once  wrote,  "  so  far  as  regards  educa- 
tion, atmosphere,  and  mental  culture,  with  Everett  and  Ban- 
croft. Their  lives  have  been  of  a  more  learned  and  medita- 
tive cast  than  mine,  and  mine  of  a  more  adventurous  and  ac- 
tive complexion  than  theirs."  l  Born  in  1800,  he  graduated 
from  Harvard  when  he  was  seventeen,  became  a  tutor  of 
natural  philosophy  and  mathematics  at  that  college,  then 
studied  law,  and  at  twenty-five  entered  the  legislature  of  his 
State.  In  1829  he  went  to  Europe,  remained  there  two 
years,  and,  like  many  other  Americans  of  culture,  finding 
Spain  the  most  interesting  of  countries,  stayed  there  long 
enough  to  get  the  spirit  and  material  for  an  interesting  book 
which  he  wrote  upon  his  return.  During  a  three  years' 
term  in  Congress  he  acquired  the  reputation  of  being  a  fas- 
cinating public  speaker ;  his  utterances  smacked  of  the  study, 
for  he  quoted  from  the  Iliad  with  the  same  facility  as  did 
other  members  from  the  Bible.  President  Tyler  sent  him 
as  minister  to  China,  where  he  was  successful  in  negotiating 
a  treaty  which  for  the  first  time  opened  up  diplomatic  rela- 
tions with  the  celestial  empire.  He  served  as  general  in  the 
Mexican  war,  and,  when  appointed  a  member  of  the  cabinet, 
was  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Massachusetts. 

Gushing  was  one  of  the  most  indefatigable  of  workers. 


1  Private  letter  of  Gushing  t6  C.  E.  Lester,  Feb.  19th,  1853,  published  in 
the  New  York  Times,  Oct.  17th,  1853. 


392  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1863 

While  well  versed  in  the  ancient  languages,  he  could  also 
speak  fluently  various  modern  tongues,  and  it  was  noted  that 
at  diplomatic  dinners,  while  the  Secretary  of  State  could 
converse  only  in  his  own  vernacular,  the  Attorney-general 
carried  on  conversation  with  all  the  ambassadors  in  their 
proper  languages.  Thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  best 
English  literature,  he  also  read  every  new  book,  and  remem- 
bered what  he  read.1  A  writer  of  books  and  an  honored 
contributor  to  the  stately  North  American  Review ',  he  wrote, 
while  Attorney  -  general,  an  editorial  nearly  every  day  for 
the  Washington  Union,  the  organ  of  the  administration. 
His  habits  were  temperate,  his  health  robust,  he  had  wealth 
both  inherited  and  earned,  and  he  was  altogether  an  agree- 
able member  of  society. 

It  is,  indeed,  a  pity  to  mar  the  portrait  of  such  a  man, 
but  it  cannot  be  denied  that  he  lacked  moral  sense.  Ad- 
mired by  everybody  for  his  learning  and  ability,  he  was 
trusted  by  few.  Nor  was  it  due  alone  to  his  political  incon- 
sistency that  he  forfeited  the  confidence  of  his  fellow-men. 
Starting  in  public  life  a  Whig,  he  apostatized  with  Tyler, 
and  remained  a  Democrat.  Other  men  have  changed  their 
politics,  yet  have  retained  their  reputation  for  sincerity.  But 
it  was  the  general  opinion  that  personal  interest  and  not 
principle  accounted  for  Cushing's  political  unsteadiness. 
When  he  was  a  candidate  for  governor  of  Massachusetts, 
James  Kussell  Lowell  struck  the  popular  note  in  the  follow- 
ing verses : 

"  Gineral  C.  is  a  dreffle  smart  man : 

He's  been  on  all  sides  that  give  places  and  pelf; 
But  consistency  still  wuz  a  part  of  his  plan, 
He's  been  true  to  one  party — and  that  is  himself."* 


1  When  living  at  Newburyport,  it  was  his  custom  to  look  over  all 
books  that  came  to  the  bookseller  before  they  were  exposed  for  sale. 
He  was  also  known  as  the  man  who  had  read  Webster's  Dictionary 
through  twice. — Story  told  by  the  Boston  Herald,  cited  by  the  New  York 
Tribune,  Jan.  7th,  1879. 

*  Biglow  Papers.    This  was  written  in  1847. 


OH.V.]  CALEB  GUSHING  393 

Pierce,  it  was  said,  believed  that  Cushing's  fickleness  was  in- 
tellectual, not  moral,  and  that  he  only  needed  the  influence  of 
a  man  of  stable  judgment  to  keep  him  straight.  His  advice 
was  well  esteemed  by  the  President-elect,  and  it  is  more  than 
probable  that  he  confirmed  Pierce  in  the  design,  if  he  did 
not  originally  make  the  suggestion,  of  offering  a  cabinet 
position  to  Jefferson  Davis.1 

Next  in  importance  to  the  cabinet  appointments  was  the 
selection  of  men  for  the  principal  diplomatic  posts.  "  Should 
you  desire  to  acquire  Cuba,"  Buchanan  had  written  the  Pres- 
ident-elect, "  the  choice  of  suitable  ministers  to  Spain,  Na- 
ples, England,  and  France  will  be  very  important."'  Bu- 
chanan was  appointed  minister  to  England;  which  gave 
notice  to  the  country  and  to  the  European  powers  con- 
cerned that  a  leading  object  of  the  administration  would 
be  the  acquisition  of  Cuba.  While  Secretary  of  State  un- 
der Polk,  Buchanan  had  offered  one  hundred  million  dol- 
lars for  it.  His  political  position,  however,  was  so  high, 
and  his  diplomatic  experience  so  useful,  that  no  criticism 
could  be  fairly  made  of  his  selection  by  Pierce. 

1  In  this  characterization  of  Gushing,  I  have  consulted  Forney's  Anec- 
dotes of  Public  Men,  vol.  i. ;  Our  Living  Representative  Men,  Savage ; 
the  New  York  Herald,  1853;  Letters  and  Times  of  the  Tylers,  vol.  ii.; 
North  American  Review,  vol.  xxxvii. ;  Public  Men  and  Events,  Sargent, 
vol.  ii. ;  New  York  Nation,  vol.  xviii. ;  Twenty  Years  in  Congress,  Blaine  ; 
Casket  of  Reminiscences,  Foote ;  Men  and  Measures  of  Half  a  Century, 
McCulloch;  Memoirs  of  John  Quincy  Adams,  vol.  ix. ;  Reminiscences  by 
Ben:  Perley  Poore ;  History  of  Journalism,  Hudson.  Thos.  Benton's  opin- 
ion, expressed  in  a  speech  delivered  in  1856,  will  be  of  interest :  "  Of  all 
these  [the  members  of  the  cabinet]  the  Attorney-General  is  the  master 
spirit.  He  is  a  man  of  talent,  of  learning,  of  industry  —  unscrupulous, 
double -sexed,  double -gendered,  and  hermaphroditic  in  politics,  with  a 
hinge  in  his  knee,  which  he  often  crooks,  that  thrift  may  follow  fawning. 
He  governs  by  subserviency ;  and  to  him  is  deferred  the  master's  place 
in  Mr.  Pierce's  cabinet.  When  I  heard  that  he  was  to  come  into  the 
cabinet  I  set  down  Mr.  Pierce  for  a  doomed  man,  and  foresaw  the  swift 
and  full  destruction  which  was  to  fall  upon  him." — Quoted  by  Von  Hoist, 
vol.  iv.  p.  268,  note. 

*  Dec.  llth,  1852,  Life  of  James  Buchanan,  Curtis,  vol.  ii.  p.  7& 


394  PIERCE'S   ADMINISTRATION  1865 

The  case  was  far  otherwise  in  regard  to  the  appointment 
of  Soule,  of  Louisiana,  as  minister  to  Spain.  This  could  be 
construed  in  no  other  way  than  that  President  Pierce  meant 
to  carry  out  as  well  as  he  was  able  the  desires  of  the  South- 
ern propaganda  who  were  bent  on  getting  Cuba  by  hook  or 
by  crook.  The  opinion  of  Soule  was  no  secret ;  he  had  de- 
clared it  in  open  Senate  in  the  January  preceding  his  ap- 
pointment. He  took  occasion  then  to  speak  enthusiastical- 
ly of  the  followers  of  Lopez  and  Crittenden,  who  joined  in 
the  expedition  to  Cuba.  Their  heroic  devotion  and  "the 
morality  of  their  aspirations,"  he  said,  "  deserve  the  praise 
that  is  freely  accorded  to  Lafayette  and  Kosciusko."  Soule 
was  opposed  to  purchasing  Cuba.  It  could  be  acquired  in  a 
better  way,  he  thought.  It  was  useless  for  Spain  to  ignore 
the  fact  that  Cuba  could  not  much  longer  remain  a  Spanish 
dependency;  that  she  was  certain  to  secure  her  indepen- 
dence ;  and  if  the  Cuban  people  revolted  against  Spain,  we 
should  sympathize  with  them,  because  the  independence  of 
the  island  would  be  as  desirable  as  its  annexation  to  this 
country.  Cannot  Southern  senators  see,  he  asked,  that  they 
ought  to  long  for  the  annexation  of  Cuba  on  account  of 
weighty  domestic  reasons,  and  cannot  they  understand  that 
the  intrigues  of  England  are  directed  towards  the  abolition 
of  slavery  in  that  island  ?  As  Lord  Palmerston  avows,  "  if 
the  negro  population  of  Cuba  were  rendered  free,  that  fact 
would  create  a  most  powerful  element  of  resistance  to  any 
scheme  for  annexing  Cuba  to  the  United  States,  where  slav- 
ery exists."  * 

If  the  object  had  been  to  bully  Spain  into  giving  up  the 
possession  she  held  so  dear,  something  might  be  said  in  favor 
of  this  appointment ;  but  if  the  object  were  to  gain  the  isl- 
and by  patient,  careful,  and  wise  negotiation,  a  more  un- 
fortunate appointment  could  not  have  been  made.  It  gave 
much  annoyance  to  the  Spanish  court,  and  the  government 


1  This  speech  of  Soule's  was  made  Jan.  25th,  1853.    See  Congressional 
Globe,  vol.  xxvii.  p.  118. 


CH.  V.]  SOULE— DIX  395 

organ  contended  in  a  carefully  prepared  article  that  Soule 
ought  not  to  be  received.  The  London  Times  called  it  an 
extraordinary  choice,  and  it  would  have  been  no  surprise 
had  the  Spanish  government  absolutely  refused  to  hold 
relations  with  one  who  extolled  rebellion  against  Spain, 
diplomatic  precedents  being  ample  to  warrant  such  a 
course.1 

On  his  way  to  Europe,  Soule  received  a  deputation  of  Cu- 
ban exiles,  to  whom  he  made  a  speech,  assuring  them  that 
when  a  man  became  a  minister  abroad  he  did  not  cease  to 
be  an  American  citizen;  "and  as  such  he  has  a  right  to 
carry  wherever  he  goes  the  throbbings  of  that  people  that 
speak  out  such  tremendous  truths  to  the  tyrants  of  the  old 
continent." a 

The  French  mission  was  offered  to  Dix,  but,  though  ac- 
cepted, the  appointment  in  form  was  never  made.  Southern 
politicians  objected  strenuously  on  the  ground  that  Dix  was 
an  abolitionist.  He  was  certainly  no  friend  to  the  extension 
of  slavery;  and  although  sufficiently  affected  by  the  mani- 
fest destiny  doctrine  of  his  party  not  to  oppose  the  honor- 
able annexation  of  Cuba,  he  could  not  be  depended  upon  to 
play  the  part  which  was  assigned  to  the  minister  at  Paris  in 
the  scheme  already  brewing.8 

John  Y.  Mason,  a  Virginian  of  the  old  school,  received  the 
appointment.  Hawthorne  described  him  as  "  a  fat-brained, 
good-hearted,  sensible  old  man." 4  He  hated  an  abolitionist, 
as  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  when  Sumner  was  in  Paris, 
seeking  advice  for  the  injury  sustained  by  the  assault  of 
Brooks  in  the  Senate  chamber,  Mason  declared  emphatical- 
ly that  he  would  not  treat  the  Massachusetts  senator  with 
any  politeness  or  consideration.6  There  was  no  reason  to 


1  See  New  York  Herald,  May  30th  and  31st,  1853. 
8  Harper's  Magazine,  Oct.,  1853,  p.  693. 

*  Life  of  John  A.  Dix,  vol.  i.  p.  273,  also  vol.  ii.  p.  338. 

*  Hawthorne  and  his  Wife,  vol.  ii.  p.  174. 

*  Memories  of  Many  Men,  Field,  p.  63. 


896  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [18M 

doubt  that  Mason  would  favor  zealously  the  plan  of  the 
Southern  propaganda,  or  at  least  be  as  clay  in  the  hands  of 
the  astute  Buchanan  and  the  impetuous  Soule. 

Of  the  consular  appointments,  one  deserves  mention  on 
account  of  being  at  once  a  graceful  bestowal  by  the  Presi- 
dent and  an  honor  to  the  country.  Nathaniel  Hawthorne 
was  named  for  the  lucrative  position  of  consul  at  Liverpool. 
He  at  first  shrank  from  accepting  office  from  his  friend,  as 
it  seemed  too  much  like  receiving  pay  for  his  campaign  bi- 
ography out  of  the  public  purse,  and  argument  was  needed 
to  vanquish  his  scruples. 

It  is  agreeable  to  record  an  instance  where  the  bonds 
among  the  members  of  the  republic  of  letters  proved  strong- 
er than  the  alienation  which  might  have  arisen  from  politi- 
cal differences.  " '  Good  !  good ! '  I  exclaimed  aloud  on  the 
floor  of  the  Senate  as  your  nomination  was  announced," 
wrote  Sumner  to  Hawthorne  from  the  Senate  chamber. 
"'Good!  good!'  I  now  write  you  on  its  confirmation."' 
Hawthorne  was  a  man  of  so  fine  honor  that  he  called 
forth  the  truest  attachments  and  noblest  friendships.  So 
much  has  been  published  about  him;  his  daily  life  has 
been  presented  to  our  view  with  detail  so  minute;  every 
scrap  which  would  show  his  mental  processes  being  so 
fully  divulged,  that  it  is  given  us  to  know  Hawthorne 
as  he  was  known  to  his  intimate  friends  and  devoted  fam- 
ily. That  with  this  knowledge  our  respect  for  him  re- 
mains undiminished  is  perhaps  the  highest  tribute  to  his 
character. 

In  after-years,  in  the  midst  of  the  war,  when  Pierce,  on 
account  of  his  undisguised  Southern  sympathies,  had  lost  the 
favor  of  the  Northern  people,  and  Hawthorne  had  reached 
that  point  of  a  successful  writer's  career  where  the  most 
trivial  productions  of  his  pen  were  awaited  with  eagerness, 
the  popular  author  dedicated  to  the  unpopular  ex-President, 
in  the  most  complimentary  of  inscriptions,  his  work,  "  Our 


Study  of  Hawthorne,  Lathrop,  p.  248. 


CH.  V.]  HAWTHORNE  397 

Old  Home."  For  the  most  part,  the  men  who  read  books 
were  earnest  for  the  prosecution  of  the  war  and  the  destruc- 
tion of  slavery,  and  Hawthorne's  publishers  remonstrated 
with  him  for  the  dedication  of  the  book.  His  reply,  abso- 
lutely refusing  to  withdraw  either  the  dedication  or  dedica- 
tory epistle,  displays  a  manliness  of  temper  which  it  is  a 
pleasure  to  record.  "  If,"  wrote  Hawthorne,  "  Pierce  is  so 
exceedingly  unpopular  that  his  name  is  enough  to  sink  the 
volume,  there  is  so  much  the  more  need  that  an  old  friend 
should  stand  by  him.  I  cannot,  merely  on  account  of 
pecuniary  profit  or  literary  reputation,  go  back  from  what 
I  have  deliberately  felt  and  thought  it  right  to  do ;  and  if  I 
were  to  tear  out  the  dedication,  I  should  never  look  at  the 
volume  again  without  remorse  or  shame." l 

It  is  a  curious  fact  that  an  unobtrusive  politician  like  Haw- 
thorne should  have  owed  to  his  connection  with  politics  the 
necessary  prompting  and  opportunity  for  his  two  greatest 
works.3  The  loss  of  his  place  in  the  custom-house  impelled 
him  to  write  "The  Scarlet  Letter;"  the  consulship  gave 
him  the  opportunity  of  visiting  Europe,  which  enabled  him 
to  write  "  The  Marble  Faun."  It  is  the  contrast  between 
these  two  romances,  together  with  their  similarities,  which 
make  the  deepest  impression  on  the  minds  of  those  who 
admire  this  literary  artist.  The  one  portrays  the  manners 
of  the  narrow-minded  Puritan  community,  making  us  enter 
into  the  inmost  thoughts  and  feelings  of  those  men  who 
founded  a  State ;  the  other  takes  us  among  the  gay,  light- 
hearted  Italians.  We  enjoy  for  the  moment  their  sensuous 
existence,  and  share  with  them  the  feeling  that  life  is  one 
long  holiday.  Both  are  tales  of  sin  and  remorse,  yet  so 
marked  is  the  power  of  the  artist  in  the  setting  of  his  pict- 
ures that  to  us  it  sefems  the  New  England  sky  must  be  al- 


1  Study  of  Hawthorne,  p.  321.    The  Old  Home  was  published  In  1863. 

8  But  Hawthorne  wrote,  March  15,  1851 :  "  The  House  of  the  Seven  Qa- 
lie*,  in  my  opinion,  is  better  than  The  Scarlet  Letter." — Letter  to  Horatio 
Bridge,  Harper's  Magazine,  February,  1802,  p.  371. 


398  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1868 

ways  gray,  nature  ever  taking  on  a  sombre  hue  to  be  in 
keeping  with  the  gloomy  story.1 

In  the  tale  of  Italy  everything  is  bright.  A  flood  of  sun- 
shine pours  upon  the  remorseful  souls  in  their  most  bitter 
moments.  One  can  scarce  believe,  such  is  the  powerful  phys- 
ical impression  made  by  these  stories,  that  the  sun  shines  as 
brightly,  and  that  the  clear  blue  sky  is  as  common,  in  New 
England  as  in  Italy.  The  criticism  has  sometimes  been 
made  that  as  Hawthorne  did  not  know  Italian  he  could  not 
penetrate  into  the  inner  life  of  the  people,  and  seize  upon 
their  essential  characteristics.  Yet,  in  truth,  he  seemed  to 
know  Kome  better  than  his  birthplace,  and  to  have  known  it 
longer.  "  Kome  certainly  does  draw  into  itself  my  heart," 
he  wrote,  "  as  I  think  even  London,  or  even  little  Concord 
itself,  or  old  sleepy  Salem,  never  did  and  never  will." a  Kome 
does  not  belong  to  Italy,  but  to  the  western  world.  One 
must  indeed  be  an  Aryan  to  appreciate  its  worth,  but  every 
one  who  speaks  a  language  of  the  European  branch  of  that 
race  has  a  part  in  the  historic  and  artistic  possessions  of  the 
imperial  city.  This  view  powerfully  influenced  Hawthorne, 
and  the  elaboration  of  it  in  the  descriptive  portions  of  "  The 
Marble  Faun"  has  made  it  the  best  of  Koman  guide-books. 

As  long  as  these  romances  are  read,  people  fond  of  meta- 
physical subtleties  will  interpret  variously  the  meaning  of 
the  author,  argue  about  the  motive,  and  seek  the  underlying 
meaning  of  these  tales  of  sin,  suffering,  and  remorse.  But 
if  the  merit  of  his  books  had  lain  solely  in  the  plot  and 
the  moral,  they  would  have  been  forgotten  by  the  gener- 
ation who  first  read  them.  It  is  because  Hawthorne  wrote 
the  best  English  prose  of  his  country  that  he  may  be 
reckoned  among  the  immortals.  "Where,"  asked  Mot- 


1  Hawthorne  wrote,  Feb.  4,  1850:  "  The  Scarlet  Letter  lacks  sunshine. 
...  It  is  ...  a  story,  into  which  I  found  it  almost  impossible  to  throw 
any  cheering  light."— Ibid.,  p.  369. 

9  See  articles  in  New  York  Nation,  vol.  xlix.  pp.  32, 48,  and  references  to 
Italian  Note  Books,  vol.  ii.  pp.  189, 216. 


CH.  V.]  OFFICE-SEEKING  399 

ley  of  him,  after  reading  "  The  Marble  Faun,"  "  oh,  where 
is  the  godmother  who  gave  you  to  talk  pearls  and  dia- 
monds?"1 

While  the  diplomatic  appointments  were  under  considera- 
tion, the  parcelling-out  of  offices  which  brought  profit  rather 
than  honor  was  also  going  on.  It  has  been  noted  above 
that  the  crowd  of  people  at  the  inauguration  was  unusually 
great.  A  large  number  remained  at  Washington  after  the 
ceremonies  to  seek  reward  for  their  exertions  in  bringing 
back  again  to  power  the  Democratic  party.  During  the 
canvass  it  had  been  openly  proclaimed  that  if  the  Democrats 
were  successful,  a  clean  sweep  of  offices  would  be  made. 
The  President  stated  in  his  inaugural,  in  courtly  terms,  that 
the  general  expectation  would  be  realized.  Everybody  was 
agreed  about  the  policy ;  but  when  it  came  to  the  division  of 
the  spoils  there  were  ten  applicants  for  nearly  every  impor- 
tant office,  and  the  disappointment  of  the  many  was  more 
noticeable  than  the  complacency  of  the  few. 

The  importunate  begging  for  official  positions  in  a  repub- 
lic where  it  was  so  easy  to  earn  a  living  was  nothing  less 
than  disgraceful.  Office-seekers  crowded  the  public  recep- 
tions of  the  President,  and  while  greeting  him  in  the  usual 
way,  attempted  at  the  same  time  to  urge  their  claims,  actu- 
ally thrusting  their  petitions  into  his  hands.  "  There  never 
was  a  fiercer  time  than  this  among  the  office-seekers,"  wrote 
Hawthorne  to  a  friend.8 

The  usual  trouble  about  the  ISTew  York  City  offices  exist- 
ed, and  the  factional  fight  in  the  party  made  it  extremely 
difficult  to  decide  between  the  conflicting  interests.  The 
President  and  his  cabinet  applied  themselves  diligently  to 
the  work,  and  in  less  than  two  months  after  the  inaugura- 
tion it  could  be  said  that  practically  all  the  fat  places  in  the 


1  A  Study  of  Hawthorne,  p.  262. 

8  To  R.  H.  Stoddard,  who  had  applied  for  his  influence.  The  letter  is 
worth  reading,  as  a  commentary  on  the  spoils  system  in  1853.  Haw- 
thorne and  his  Wife,  vol.  i.  p.  461. 


400  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [185* 

gift  of  the  administration  at  home  and  abroad  had  been 
filled.' 

In  this  proscription,  Fillmore  Whigs  received  no  more  con- 
sideration than  the  followers  of  Seward.  The  fact  that  they 
had  fought  side  by  side  with  the  Northern  Democrats  for 
the  compromise  and  had  counselled  submission  to  the  Fugi- 
tive Slave  law  counted  for  nothing.  The  popular  verdict 
was  interpreted  as  a  demand  that  all  the  Whigs  should  be 
turned  out  of  office,  and  it  is  the  most  noteworthy  feature  of 
the  situation  that  the  Whigs  tamely  acquiesced  in  this  whole- 
sale proscription,  surrendering  their  positions  without  a  mur- 
mur. Nor  did  the  opposition  press  teem  with  articles  cen- 
suring the  administration  for  its  course.  None  of  those 
journals  were  violent  in  denunciation,  some  even  approved 
the  policy,  and  all  appeared  to  regard  it  as  a  matter  of 
course.  From  the  time  when  Jackson  began  the  practice  of 
making  party  fealty  the  test  for  appointment  to  the  civil 
service,  the  opposition  press  had  denounced  vigorously  the 
removal  of  political  opponents  at  every  partisan  change  of 
administration.  The  acquiescence  in  the  practice  now  may 
have  arisen  in  some  degree  from  the  crushing  defeat  which 
the  Whigs  had  sustained ;  but  a  more  powerful  reason  for 
this  silent  submission  lay  in  the  fact  that  the  constant  prac- 
tice and  advocacy  of  the  policy  by  party  leaders  had  so  de- 
bauched public  opinion  that  a  change  of  officers  in  the  civil 
service  had  come  to  be  regarded  as  a  necessary  accompani- 
ment of  a  change  of  party  control.  From  the  year  1853  we 
must  date  the  cordial  recognition  by  politicians  and  people 
of  the  principle  "  To  the  victors  belong  the  spoils." 

The  summer  of  1853  was  one  of  political  quiet  and  busi- 
ness prosperity,  but  many  Southern  cities  were  afflicted  by 
a  scourge  more  terrible  than  political  turmoil  or  financial 
disaster.  The  dreaded  yellow  fever  made  its  appearance. 
In  New  Orleans  its  ravages  were  the  greatest.  Never  had 


>  See  New  York  Herald,  April  22d,  1653.    I  have,  in  this  account  of 
office- seeking,  consulted  that  newspaper  carefully  from  March  4th. 


CH.V.]  AMUSEMENTS  AT  NEW  ORLEANS  401 

!New  Orleans  been  so  prosperous  and  gay  as  during  the  win- 
ter season  of  1853 ;  never  had  the  city  been  so  full  of  people.1 
The  largest  cotton  crop  ever  produced  in  the  United  States 
up  to  that  time  was  being  marketed  at  favorable  prices. 
Never  had  the  sugar  plantations  yielded  such  rich  returns. 
One  hundred  and  thirty  million  dollars'  worth  of  produce  of 
all  kinds  had  been  landed  upon  the  levees  of  New  Orleans. 
The  Jackson  railroad  was  building,  and  a  great  system  of 
iron  roads  was  projected.  Real  estate  was  active.  Louisi- 
ana had  not  indulged  in  threats  of  secession  or  in  dreams 
of  a  Southern  confederacy,  such  as  were  common  in  the 
sister  States  of  South  Carolina  and  Mississippi ;  for  her  citi- 
zens were  aware  that  her  prosperity  was  bound  up  in  the 
Union,  and  the  triumphant  election  of  Pierce  was  inter- 
preted as  being  favorable  to  the  allaying  of  sectional  con- 
troversies. 

If  the  smiling  material  conditions  of  New  Orleans  were  a 
tribute  to  the  energy  of  the  American  population,  the  many 
places  of  amusement,  nightly  open,  denoted  that  the  desire 
of  distraction,  so  characteristic  of  the  French,  prevailed  in 
this  cosmopolitan  city.  At  one  theatre  the  elder  Booth  as- 
tonished the  audience  by  his  intensely  natural  impersonation 
of  Richard  III. ;  at  another,  Anna  Cora  Mowatt  delighted 
the  old-fashioned  play-goers ;  at  another,  Lola  Montez,  who 
had  not  yet  outlived  the  notoriety  of  causing  a  revolution 
in  Munich  and  the  abdication  of  a  king,  fascinated  crowds 
of  gay  and  frivolous  people  by  representing  on  the  mimic 
stage  a  story  of  her  disorderly  adventures  in  Bavaria,8  and 
by  dancing  in  voluptuous  measure  the  swift,  whirling  taran- 
tella. One  place  of  amusement  was  devoted  to  French 
opera,  which  had  become  a  necessity  of  the  winter  to  the 
lovers  of  music ;  Dan  Rice  had  a  hippodrome ;  Ole  Bull 
with  the  violin,  and  Gottschalk  with  the  piano,  enchanted 
their  hearers  by  their  brilliant  execution ;  Adelina  Patti  was 


1  New  Orleans  Picayune,  Jan.  9th,  1853. 

2  The  play  was  called  Lola  Montez  in  Bavaria :  a  Drama  in  Five  Eras. 

I.— 26 


402  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1868 

just  beginning  in  the  concert  hall  that  career  which  has  en- 
titled her  to  the  name  of  the  queen  of  song.  Those  who 
loved  science  were  gratified  by  a  course  of  lectures  from 
Louis  Agassiz  on  his  favorite  subjects.  The  Southern  peo- 
ple heard  him  gladly,  for  his  theory  of  the  origin  of  man 
denied  emphatically  that  the  Caucasian  and  negro  had  a 
common  ancestor,  and  this  hypothesis  was  construed  to 
justify  the  enslaving  of  the  inferior  race. 

Every  Sunday  those  who  were  fond  of  the  sport  could 
choose  between  the  attractions  offered  at  three  rival  race- 
courses. Private  hospitality  was  lavishly  dispensed,  and  to 
those  whose  social  position  was  high,  and  who  were  able  to 
take  part  in  all  the  gayeties  of  the  season,  life  seemed  a  car- 
nival.1 The  public  balls  were  numerous.  When  Mardi- 
gras  came,  although  many  regretted  that  the  usual  street 
parade  was  given  up,  and  bewailed  the  glories  of  bygone 
days,  it  was  acknowledged  by  every  one  that  the  brilliant 
fancy-dress  parties  and  balls  were  a  compensation. 

Isolated  cases  of  yellow  fever  began  to  occur  in  the  early 
part  of  May,  and  although  during  the  month  there  were 
deaths  from  the  disease,  no  alarm  whatever  was  felt,  for 
this  was  but  a  repetition  of  the  experience  of  every  year 
since  the  epidemic  of  1847.  Those  who  intimated  that 
the  vile  condition  of  the  streets  was  such  as  to  augment  a 
pestilence,  if  not  to  invite  it,  were  frowned  upon  as  defam- 
ers  of  the  city.  It  was  pleasanter  to  discuss  magnificent 
future  schemes  of  improved  drainage  than  to  take  immedi- 
ate and  practical  steps  towards  setting  the  city  in  order. 
The  travel  to  the  North  and  Europe  during  the  spring  and 
early  summer  was  larger  than  usual ;  not,  however,  because 
the  rich  and  the  fashionable  had  any  forebodings  of  the 
dismal  fate  in  store  for  their  beloved  city,  but  because  the 
spring,  being  warmer  than  common,  prompted  an  earlier 


1  "At  the  time  of  my  first  visit,  in  the  winter  of  1856-57,  New  Orleans 
was  socially  the  most  delightful  city  in  the  Union." — Episodes  in  a  Lift 
of  Adventure,  Laurence  Oliphant,  p.  91. 


ofc.V.j      THE  YELLOW  FEVER  AT  NEW  ORLEANS       403 

departure  from  the  Southern  climate ;  and,  as  money  was 
abundant,  the  desire  for  travel  could  be  gratified  as  soon  as 
born. 

By  the  latter  part  of  June  the  situation  looked  ominous. 
For  the  week  ending  June  25th  there  were  nine  deaths  from 
yellow  fever,  and  for  that  ending  July  2d  twenty-five.  Yet 
if  one  had  depended  upon  the  newspapers  for  knowledge  of 
passing  events,  he  would  never  have  suspected  that  the  dread- 
ed epidemic  had  begun,  since  the  journals  made  no  mention 
whatever  of  the  startling  fact.  The  commercial  interest  of 
the  city  insisted  strenuously  that  the  state  of  affairs  should 
not  be  made  public,  and  the  real-estate  speculators  were 
wild  with  alarm  lest  the  truth  should  be  told.  The  next 
week,  when  the  deaths  had  more  than  doubled,  there  were 
editorial  expressions  of  fear  that  the  present  season  would 
be  a  sickly  one ;  but  when  July  16th  arrived  and  two  hun- 
dred and  four  deaths  by  yellow  fever  for  the  week  were  re- 
ported, it  was  felt  that  concealment  was  no  longer  possible, 
and  the  newspapers  became  again  the  chronicles  of  the 
time.  The  jaunty  air  with  which  a  serious  condition  had 
been  treated  now  gave  place  to  panic-stricken  fear.  All 
who  were  able,  and  who  were  not  detained  by  duty,  fled. 
The  city  government  failed  completely  to  grasp  the  situa- 
tion ;  the  board  of  aldermen  resolved,  the  last  week  in  July, 
that  the  yellow  fever  in  the  city  had  not  become  epidemic, 
and  adjourned  till  October;  the  cowardly  went  North,  the 
brave  remained,  and  as  citizens  did  duty  which  their  asso- 
ciates would  not  let  them  do  officially. 

As  frequently  happens,  however,  in  American  cities,  when 
the  constituted  authorities  have  broken  down,  the  best  men 
of  the  community  came  to  the  front  and  went  to  work  with 
discretion  and  heroism.  Chief  among  the  agencies  of  good 
was  the  Howard  Association,  composed  of  active,  energetic 
men,  whose  mission  during  an  epidemic  was  to  take  care  of 
the  poor  and  destitute  sick,  and  provide  them  with  proper 
medical  attendance  and  nursing.  A  record  of  the  work  of 
this  noble  body  during  the  fatal  summer  was  written  by 


404  PIEROB'S  ADMINISTRATION 

one  of  their  number,  and,  while  it  vies  in  interest  with  any 
romance,  it  is  simply  the  truthful  tale  of  an  unassuming 
"  Samaritan ;" '  but  the  fascination  of  the  book  lies  in  the 
accounts  of  the  conversation  and  action  of  the  men  and 
women  whom  the  approach  of  death  made  sincere. 

The  premonitory  symptoms  of  yellow  fever  were  not 
unmistakable,  nor  such  as  to  cause  intense  anxiety;  they 
were  the  same  that  precede  the  most  ordinary  diseases.  It 
began  with  a  cold,  a  hardly  perceptible  chill,  an  aching  in 
the  head,  an  apparently  insignificant  fever,  and,  a  little  later, 
pains  in  the  back  ensue.  These  warnings  were  made  light 
of  by  the  laboring  poor.  Those  who  lived  from  hand  to 
mouth  could  not  afford  to  lie  by  on  account  of  ill  feelings, 
which  strong  men  living  in  a  malarious  climate  learn  to 
slight.  In  such  cases,  the  poison  of  the  insidious  disease 
had  coursed  through  the  veins  of  the  body  before  the  man 
took  to  his  bed  or  called  a  physician.  Only  about  one-half 
of  those  attacked  with  yellow  fever  recovered ;  an  apparent 
cessation  of  the  ravages  of  the  disease  was  with  many  but  a 
premonition  of  a  fatal  issue. 

The  weather  was  unfavorable,  being  characterized  by 
sudden  changes ;  there  was  much  rain,  and  for  ten  days 
July  seemed  like  January.  Woollens  were  worn,  people 
slept  under  blankets,  windows  were  kept  shut,  and  the  thin- 
blooded  lighted  their  fires.  The  death-rate  increased.  On 
the  last  day  of  July  there  were  one  hundred  and  thirty- 
seven  deaths  from  yellow  fever,  and  in  August  the  num- 
ber of  victims  became  constantly  greater  until  the  21st, 
which,  by  common  consent,  was  called  the  black  day  of 
the  plague.  Two  hundred  and  thirty  deaths  from  yellow 
fever  were  reported  that  day,  but  the  actual  number  was 
nearer  three  hundred — a  daily  mortality  more  than  double 
the  ordinary  weekly  death-rate  of  New  Orleans. 


1  Diary  of  a  Samaritan,  by  a  Member  of  the  Howard  Association  of  New 
Orleans.  The  writer  was  W.  L.  Robison,  a  gentleman  of  good  social  and 
business  position  and  high  character.  (Harper  &  Brothers,  1860.) 


CH.V.]      THE  YELLOW  FEVER  AT  NEW  ORLEANS       405 

The  weather  now  became  intensely  hot,  but  the  atmos- 
phere was  full  of  humidity,  and  the  analytical  chemists  said 
there  was  a  lack  of  ozone  in  the  air.  To  purify  the  atmos- 
phere, the  Board  of  Health  ordered  that  four  hundred  dis- 
charges should  be  fired  from  several  six-pound  cannons ;  but 
the  thunder  of  the  artillery  had  a  fatal  effect  on  many  of 
the  sick,  throwing  them  into  convulsions.  Then  another 
mode  of  clearing  the  air  was  tried.  Barrels  filled  with  tar 
were  burned  all  over  the  city.  "At  sunset,"  wrote  the 
"Samaritan"  in  his  diary,  "when  all  were  simultaneously 
fired,  a  pandemonium  glare  lighted  up  our  city.  Not  a 
breath  of  air  disturbed  the  dense  smoke,  which  slowly  as- 
cended in  curling  columns  until  it  reached  the  height  of 
about  five  hundred  feet.  Here  it  seemed  equipoised,  fes- 
tooning over  our  doomed  city  like  a  funeral  pall,  and  there 
remaining  until  the  shades  of  night  disputed  with  it  the 
reign  of  darkness." ' 

In  the  latter  part  of  August  there  were  new  developments 
in  the  disease,  and  greater  difficulty  in  treating  it.  After  a 
few  days  of  convalescence,  the  patient  failed  to  gain  appe- 
tite or  strength,  distressing  boils  appeared  on  the  body,  and 
a  fatal  relapse  was  not  uncommon.  Another  characteristic 
appeared  in  some  patients  on  the  second  day  of  their  attack. 
"  Kound  purple  spots,  the  size  of  a  dime,  with  the  edges 
darker  than  the  centre,"  were  discovered  on  their  bodies. 
"  If  they  survived  the  third  day,  the  side  on  which  they  lay 
for  a  few  hours  became  of  the  same  color,  as  if  mortification 
had  set  in  from  interruption  to  a  free  circulation  through 
the  laggard  veins." a  These  symptoms  suggested  to  physi- 
cians who  had  not  forgotten  their  classical  reading  the  de- 
scriptions of  Thucydides  and  Lucretius,  and  gave  rise  to  the 
conjecture  that  the  spots  indicated  a  modified  type  of  the 
most  famous  of  plagues. 

When  the  historian  writes  that  the  physicians  were  faith* 


1  Diary  of  a  Samaritan,  p.  153. 
8  Ibid.,  p.  208. 


406  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1853 

fill,  brave,  and  untiring,  he  simply  adds  another  to  the  many 
tributes  to  the  character  of  the  American  medical  profes- 
sion. The  yellow  fever  of  1853  was  the  most  aggravated 
type  ever  known.  The  doctors  early  recognized  this  fact, 
and  appreciated  that  different  treatment  was  required  from 
that  which  had  hitherto  been  in  vogue.  Cupping,  which 
in  former  epidemics  had  been  deemed  indispensable,  was 
now  only  employed  in  rare  cases,  and  even  then  with  the 
greatest  caution.  The  differences  in  treatment  among  the 
native  physicians  were  not  material  except  on  one  point ; 
and  this  was  whether  quinine  should  be  administered,  and, 
if  so,  whether  in  large  or  small  quantities.  The  physicians 
not  only  worked  nobly,  but  with  rare  good  sense.  In  the 
presence  of  the  appalling  scourge,  they  felt  that  petty 
wrangles  were  unworthy  of  their  profession,  and  ad- 
journed their  disputes  until  the  epidemic  was  over,  when 
they  carried  them  on  in  the  columns  of  newspapers  and 
magazines  instead  of  in  the  sick-chamber  or  hospital. 

The  "  Samaritan,"  who  seems  to  have  been  a  man  of  dis- 
cernment and  good  judgment,  made  some  curious  observa- 
tions. The  only  quarrel  he  reported  was  the  case  of  two 
German  doctors  who,  by  a  mistake,  were  asked  to  visit  the 
same  patient.  Both  prescribed ;  each  condemned  the  treat- 
ment of  the  other ;  and  each,  at  every  visit,  threw  the  medi- 
cine of  his  rival  into  the  street.  The  poor  patient  could 
not  venture  to  decide  between  the  two,  and  therefore  took 
the  physic  of  neither,  but  drank  copiously  of  ice-water.  He 
was  soon  beyond  danger  and  convalesced  rapidly. 

Two  patients  in  a  hospital  had  their  cots  changed  by  some 
accident,  and  as  the  doctor  prescribed  by  number,  the  con- 
valescent got  the  medicine  of  the  one  who  had  been  sick 
but  thirty-six  hours,  while  he  in  turn  took  physic  which, 
according  to  the  directions  of  the  faculty,  was  neither  proper 
nor  useful  until  the  disease  had  been  eight  days  in  progress. 
Both  patients  finally  recovered. 

A  physician  who  had  a  diploma  from  the  college  of  medi- 
cine at  Paris  came  to  the  hospital  stricken  with  the  disease, 


CH.V.]      THE  YELLOW  FEVER  AT  NEW  ORLEANS       4Q7 

and  claimed  the  right  of  prescribing  for  himself.  He  was 
a  friend  to  the  heroic  treatment,  had  himself  cupped  and 
bled  frequently  and  freely,  and  swallowed  the  strongest  of 
drugs ;  his  strength  failed  him,  he  had  no  power  to  resist 
the  disease,  and  fell  its  victim. 

A  circumstance  worthy  of  note  is  the  difference  of  treat- 
ment among  physicians  of  different  nationalities.  It  was 
the  aim  of  the  Howard  Association  to  send  respectively  to 
sick  Frenchmen,  Spaniards,  and  Germans  doctors  of  their 
own  country.  The  Spanish  physician  would  give  to  his 
patients  on  the  first  day  of  convalescence  the  juice  of  fresh 
oysters ;  the  German,  at  the  height  of  the  disease,  advised 
strong  fluid  nourishment,  and  in  convalescence  hard-boiled 
eggs ;  the  French  physicians  would  give  hot  drinks  or  cold 
drinks,  and  enjoin  close  covering  or  no  covering  at  all. 
Each  treatment  seemed  to  be  equally  successful. 

The  doctors,  recognizing  that  careful  nursing  was  as  im- 
portant as  skilful  medical  attendance,  made  many  visits 
simply  of  counsel  and  suggestion  to  their  assistants.  Nurses 
were  plentiful,  and  good  ones  easily  obtained.  The  fever 
did  not  attack  negroes  or  quadroons,  and  white  persons  once 
having  the  disease  rarely  suffered  from  it  again.  Thus  there 
was  a  large  class  of  people  available  for  ministering  to  the 
sick.  The  Sisters  of  Charity  received  a  special  tribute 
from  the  "  Samaritan,"  though  he  was  not  of  their  religion. 
"  Chief  above  all,"  he  writes,  "  do  I  record  the  praise  of  the 
Sisters  of  Charity.  .  .  .  They  do  good  by  stealth.  ...  I  have 
seen  them  in  the  silent  rounds  of  duty,  in  the  infirmaries, 
hospitals,  and  rickety  tenements  of  the  poor,  comforting 
their  own  sex  of  all  religions,  castes,  and  conditions,  fearless 
of  contamination,  dressing  loathsome  wounds  and  inhaling 
the  most  nauseating  odors.  .  .  .  The  world  may  be  bad  in 
the  main,  but  a  redeeming  feature  is  this  institution,  which 
is  as  a  golden  connecting  link  between  heaven  and  earth." 1 

Many  strange    experiences   does   this   observer  record 


Diary  of  a  Samaritan,  p.  196. 


408  TIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [186* 

His  walk  led  him  among  the  poor,  but  he  found  people  of 
education  and  refinement ;  he  gave  succor  to  a  woman  from 
France  whom  he  thought  more  beautiful  than  the  Yenus  of 
Praxiteles ;  he  witnessed  among  destitute  families  the  strong- 
est attachments,  the  most  bitter  grief  at  separations,  and  the 
most  heroic  self-sacrifice ;  he  saw  Christians  die  with  hero- 
ism, and  infidels  without  fear.  The  "  Samaritan  "  was  espe- 
cially struck  with  the  carelessness  of  an  Italian  soldier  who, 
though  sick  unto  death  and  perfectly  conscious,  remained  in 
gay  spirits,  and  attempted  to  cheer  his  companions  in  the 
hospital  by  his  philosophy.  He  spoke  of  quitting  life  as  los- 
ing "  a  thing  which  none  but  fools  would  keep,"  and  when 
enjoined  to  sleep,  replied,  "  Sleep !  have  we  not  all  eternity 
to  sleep  in?" 

The  most  incongruous  circumstance  which  came  under  the 
"  Samaritan's  "  observation  was  the  case  of  an  old  man  who 
was  employed  as  a  hospital  nurse.  The  sick  who  were  past 
recovery  had  for  him  a  serpent-like  fascination :  when  there 
was  agony  in  the  face  or  when  the  body  writhed  in  contor- 
tions, he  would  chuckle ;  when  the  fatal  symptom  of  the 
black  vomit  manifested  itself,  he  grinned  with  a  strange  de- 
light ;  and  the  death-rattle  was  music  to  his  ear.  It  turned 
out  that  the  man  had  suffered  from  misfortune,  deceit,  and 
ingratitude,  and  had  become  a  hater  of  his  kind,  to  whom 
remained  no  joy  but  that  of  seeing  his  fellow-man  in  trouble 
and  in  pain. 

"When  all  attempt  to  conceal  the  truth  became  useless,  and 
the  full  horror  of  the  situation  broke  upon  the  people  of 
New  Orleans,  dismay  and  despair  succeeded  for  a  while 
levity  and  hope.  The  newspapers,  as  if  to  atone  for  their 
first  silence,  now  spoke  of  nothing  but  the  epidemic ;  the 
editors  studied  the  history  of  former  plagues,  and  in  their 
articles  imitated  the  many  graphic  accounts  found  in  litera- 
ture, which  are  remembered,  not  so  much  for  their  historical 
and  scientific  value,  as  for  the  thrilling  interest  which  the 
writers  have  transfused  into  their  narratives.  The  one  item 
of  news  anxiously  awaited  was  the  daily  bulletin  of  the 


CH.  V.]      THE  YELLOW  FEVER  AT  NEW  ORLEANS       409 

Board  of  Health  giving  the  interments  of  the  day  previous, 
which  was  posted  up  in  many  frequented  places.  As  the 
number  of  deaths  by  the  epidemic  mounted  up  to  an  alarm- 
ing degree,  this  intelligence  caused  blanched  cheeks  and 
sinking  hearts.  Business  was  suspended ;  the  levee  was  a 
desert ;  pleasure  was  hardly  thought  of ;  the  bar-room  and 
club-houses  were  scarcely  visited.-  Yice  was  cowed;  the 
haunts  of  the  libertine  were  deserted.  One  passion  alone 
proved  too  strong  for  the  prevailing  fear  to  overcome: 
gambling  held  its  votaries,  the  excitement  of  high  play 
making  them  forget  that  the  pestilence  stalked  through  their 
city. 

But  the  lawlessness,  the  bold  and  illicit  indulgence  in  the 
pleasure  of  the  moment,  of  which  Thucydides  speaks ;  the 
disregard  of  human  laws  and  religious  vows,  the  voluptuous 
riot  which  Boccaccio  has  related  of  the  plague  of  Florence ; 
the  work  of  thieves  and  the  excesses  of  blasphemers  which 
augmented  the  horrors  of  the  great  plague  of  London,  if 
De  Foe's  account  be  true— from  all  these  New  Orleans  was 
spared.  Mention  is  made,  however,  of  hilarious  parties  who 
drove  along  the  shell  road  to  the  lake  to  escape  for  a  while 
the  deadly  atmosphere  that  hung  over  the  doomed  city. 
There,  in  a  fine  hotel,  might  gentlemen  and  ladies  partake 
of  dainty  food  and  generous  wines.  Yet  revelry  which  in 
ordinary  times  would  be  counted  innocent  jarred  harshly  on 
the  ears  in  this  season  of  distress.  The  streets  of  the  city 
were  given  up  to  doctor's  gigs,  to  cabs  conveying  the  sick  to 
the  hospital  and  hearses  carrying  the  dead  to  the  grave. 
"  The  morning  train  of  funerals,"  wrote  the  "  Samaritan," 
"  as  was  the  evening's,  crowded  the  road  to  the  cemeteries. 
It  was  an  unbroken  line  of  carriages  and  omnibuses  for  two 
miles  and  a  half." l 

"When  the  number  of  deaths  grew  rapidly,  it  was  for  a 
while  impossible  to  bury  the  dead.  The  situation  of  the 
city  below  the  level  of  the  river,  and  the  nature  of  the  soil, 


1  Diary  of  a  Samaritan,  p.  152. 


410  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1853 

which  is  almost  semi-fluid  at  the  depth  of  two  or  three  feet, 
added  to  the  difficulty.  The  living  brought  the  remains  of 
their  relatives  and  friends  to  the  cemeteries,  but  men  could 
not  be  had  to  dig  the  graves.  The  white  laborers  seemed  to 
have  disappeared ;  they  were  either  dead,  sick,  or  tending  the 
sick.  In  some  cases  the  mourners  dug  the  graves  for  their 
own  dead,  and  when  the  task  was  completed  threw  aside  the 
spades,  dropped  on  their  knees,  and  solemnly  repeated  a  fu- 
neral prayer.  At  times  a  dozen  or  more  processions  would 
meet  at  the  cemetery ;  abuse  of  the  authorities  and  strife  for 
precedence  marred  sadly  the  impressiveness  of  the  place  and 
occasion.  Quarrels  became  so  frequent  that  it  was  necessary 
to  detail  a  strong  police  force  to  preserve  order  at  the  grave- 
yards. 

But  most  horrible  of  all  were  the  cases  of  the  poor  who 
had  no  friends,  or  of  families  who  were  all  victims  of  the 
pestilence  and  were  buried  by  the  city  authorities.  The 
dead  coming  faster  than  they  could  be  interred,  seventy 
coffins  were  at  one  time  left  on  the  ground  exposed  to  the 
powerful  action  of  the  August  sun.  The  bodies  swelled,  the 
roughly  constructed  board  coffins  of  the  corporation  burst 
open,  and  the  poisonous  effluvia  were  wafted  by  breezes  from 
the  lake  over  the  stricken  city.  The  attention  of  the  public 
was  drawn  to  this  hideous  scene ;  it  called  forth  notices  from 
the  journals;  the  turgid  style  of  the  editors  in  describing 
this  cumulation  of  horrors  shows  the  excitement  under 
which  they  labored.  Order,  however,  was  soon  restored 
and  a  system  adopted  which  prevented  the  recurrence  of 
such  dreadful  incidents.  The  chain-gang  was  ordered  to 
the  work  by  the  mayor ;  negroes  were  hired  at  five  dollars 
per  hour  and  a  liberal  supply  of  strong  liquor  to  bury  the 
dead.  Trenches,  seven  feet  wide  and  one  hundred  feet 
long,  were  dug,  into  which  the  coffins  were  closely  packed 
three  to  four  feet  deep,  without  intermediate  earth.1  The 
pits  made  by  the  corporation  were  not  more  than  two  feet 


1  Diary  of  a  Samaritan,  p.  151. 


CH.V.]      THE  YELLOW  FEVER  AT  NEW  ORLEANS       41 1 

in  depth.  Custom  soon  reconciled  the  laborers  to  their  work, 
and  moved  them  to  ribald  jokes  more  unseemly  than  the 
jesting  of  the  grave-diggers  at  Ophelia's  grave.  It  was 
strange  that  in  this  time  of  dire  distress  the  poor  should 
have  thought  to  object  to  the  name  of  Potter's  Field  as 
the  place  of  interment  for  their  relatives  and  friends,  but 
in  the  very  height  of  the  epidemic  the  designation  of  that 
cemetery  was  officially  changed  to  "  Cypress  Grove,  Num- 
ber 2." 

"  As  we  passed  the  cemeteries,"  wrote  the  "  Samaritan," 
"  we  saw  coffins  piled  up  beside  the  gate  and  in  the  walks, 
and  laborers  at  work  digging  trenches  in  preparation  for 
the  morrow's  dead.  ...  A  fog,  which  hung  over  the  moss- 
enveloped  oaks,  prevented  the  egress  of  the  dense  and  putrid 
exhalations.  The  atmosphere  was  nauseating  to  a  degree 
that  I  have  never  noticed  in  a  sick-room." l  The  experiences 
of  this  month  of  August  were  the  most  awful  in  the  event- 
ful history  of  New  Orleans.  The  city  "  was  one  vast  charnel- 
house."3  Men  now  went  around  with  carts,  knocking  at 
every  door  and  crying  out,  "Who  have  dead  to  bury?" 
The  atmosphere  in  the  streets  was  stifling  and  fetid.  Emi- 
grants just  landed  were  nearly  all  attacked  by  the  plague. 
"Whole  families  died,  leaving  not  a  trace  behind  them ;  par- 
ents left  young  children  who  grew  up,  not  only  in  ignorance 
of  a  father  or  mother,  but  who  never  knew  their  own  proper 
names,  or  from  what  country  they  came.  When  the  sub- 
urbs and  country  were  blasted  with  the  fell  disease,  "  the 
poultry,  horses,  and  mules  fell  dead  in  the  fields." 3 

New  Orleans  was  a  field  for  heroism,  nor  was  heroism 
lacking.  The  rich  gave  money  freely  for  the  relief  of  the 
destitute,  the  energetic  devoted  their  time  and  ability  for 
the  general  good,  and  brave,  hopeful  souls  cheered  those 
who  were  on  the  brink  of  despair.  All  accounts  agree  that, 
with  rare  exceptions,  the  clergy  of  all  denominations  re- 
mained at  their  posts,  ministering  to  the  sick,  smoothing 


Diary  of  a  Samaritan,  p.  187.          8  Ibid.,  p.  209.          3  Ibid.,  p.  186. 


412  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [185* 

the  pillow  of  the  dying,  and  speaking  words  of  comfort  to 
the  mourners.  An  excess  of  zeal  led  many  to  overwork, 
and  these  became  an  easy  prey  to  the  epidemic.  Those 
who  received  aid  from  the  Howard  Association  were  nearly 
all  Catholics,  so  that  the  "  Samaritan  "  saw  much  of  the  la- 
bor and  devotion  of  the  priest,  who  was  on  duty  from  early 
morn  until  late  at  night ;  caring  nothing  for  comforts,  and 
seemingly  above  fatigue;  working  for  the  glory  of  his 
church  and  the  relief  of  those  in  her  communion ;  holding 
the  crucifix  before  the  eyes  of  the  dying,  and  always  on 
hand  in  the  hospital  to  administer  the  rite  of  extreme  unc- 
tion. "  The  sympathy  of  the  priest  and  the  dying  penitent 
was  complete." 

Thus  wrote  the  "  Samaritan,"  who  felt  deep  gratitude  for 
the  assistance  he  received  from  ministers  of  a  religion  not 
his  own.  On  one  occasion,  in  response  to  an  urgent  request, 
he  visited  one  of  those  unhappy  women  whom  the  more 
favored  of  their  sex  call  the  scourge,  and  whom  philosophers 
have  called  the  safeguard,  of  society.  She  had  fallen  a  vic- 
tim to  the  plague,  but  worse  than  the  rage  of  the  fever  was 
her  bitter  remorse  as  she  thought  of  the  life  she  had  quitted 
to  become  an  inmate  of  a  house  of  sin.  She  felt  that  her 
peace  could  not  be  made  with  Heaven  until  she  had  confessed 
and  received  absolution  from  a  priest  of  the  church,  and  she 
begged  that  such  a  one  might  be  brought  to  her.  The 
"  Samaritan  "  went  in  search  of  a  priest,  and  stated  to  him 
clearly  who  the  woman  was  and  in  what  manner  of  house 
she  lived,  expecting  that  objection  would  be  made ;  but  the 
good  father  quickly  responded :  "  Such  as  you  speak  of  have 
my  readiest  service,  for  truly  do  they  stand  in  need  of  the 
consolations  of  religion."  The  priest  shrived  the  patient, 
feeling  rewarded  that  he  had  given  peace  to  the  soul  of  an- 
other Magdalene,  and  he  could  not  murmur  that,  while  the 
Angelus  was  ringing,  she  passed  away. 

When  September  came  the  weather  changed  and  the  fever 
was  more  successfully  treated.  But  this  epidemic  lasted 
longer  than  its  predecessors ;  sixty  days  was  the  usual  term, 


THE  YELLOW  FEVER  AT  NEW  ORLEANS       413 

but  this  did  not  cease  its  ravages  until  after  three  months. 
The  2d  of  September  was  observed  as  a  day  of  fasting  in 
response  to  a  proclamation  of  the  mayor  calling  upon  all 
citizens  to  keep  it "  as  a  day  of  special  prayer  for  the  repose 
of  the  souls  of  the  dead,  for  the  stay  of  the  epidemic,  for  the 
well-being  of  the  survivors,  and  for  gratitude  that  the  hearts 
of  so  many  have  been  led  to  share  of  their  abundance  with 
this  afflicted  city."  The  North  had  contributed  money  lib- 
erally for  the  work  of  the  Howard  Association.  The  board 
of  health  officially  declared  the  city  free  of  the  epidemic 
on  the  13th  of  October.  The  number  of  deaths  from  this 
visitation  is  variously  stated,  but  no  doubt  remains  that  they 
exceeded  eight  thousand.  Never  before  or  since  has  New 
Orleans  suffered  so  severely  from  the  yellow  fever.  In  mak- 
ing a  comparison  with  other  plagues,  confusion  arises  from 
the  fact  that  the  actual  population  of  the  city  and  the  num- 
ber of  unacciimated  persons  who  remained  during  the  epi- 
demic are  matters  only  of  estimate ;  but  it  is  not  a  rash  as- 
sertion to  make,  that,  reckoning  the  proportion  of  deaths  to 
the  probable  number  of  people  subject  to  the  disease,  the 
mortality  of  the  yellow  fever  at  New  Orleans  in  1853  was 
equal  to  that  of  the  great  plague  of  London  or  the  yellow- 
fever  epidemic  at  Philadelphia  in  1798.1 


1  My  authorities  for  this  account  of  the  yellow  fever  are,  first  and  fore- 
most, The  Diary  of  a  Samaritan  (see  p.  404,  note) ;  article  by  Dr.  A.  W. 
Ely,  of  New  Orleans,  De  Bow's  Review,  Dec.,  1853 ;  an  article  in  Har- 
per's Magazine,  Nov.,  1853,  by  one  who  was  present  during  the  epi- 
demic; the  New  Orleans  Picayune;  the  New  York  Times,  Sept.,  1853, 
and  March  3d,  1854;  Dr.  McFarlane  in  De  Bow's  Review,  May,  1854; 
Dr.  E.  D.  Fenner  in  De  Bow's  Review,  July,  1854.  I  have  derived  valu- 
able information  on  the  yellow  fever  in  general  from  vol.  ii.  of  Prin- 
cipal Diseases  of  North  America,  by  Dr.  Daniel  Drake.  The  New  Or- 
leans epidemic  bears  no  comparison  in  severity  with  the  great  plague 
of  the  fourteenth  century.  "The  plague  [of  1348]  raged  in  Florence 
from  April  to  September.  .  .  .  The  deaths  in  Florence  averaged  600  a 
day ;  and  three-fifths  of  the  population  are  recorded  to  have  perished." 
— History  of  Florence,  T.  A.  Trollope,  vol.  ii.  p.  90.  "  The  memorable 
plague,  described  with  so  much  eloquence  by  Giovanni  Boccaccio,  and 


414  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1853 

The  prevalence  of  the  yellow  fever  in  the  Southern  cities 
excited  much  sympathy  at  the  North,  but  it  was  not  mixed 
with  apprehension,  for  every  one  felt  confident  that  the  epi- 
demic would  be  confined  to  the  South.  Political  repose  and 
signal  activity  in  trade  characterized  the  year.  One  of  the 
victories  of  peace  was  the  Industrial  exhibition  in  the  Crys- 
tal Palace  at  New  York.  It  was  a  private  enterprise,  sug- 
gested by  the  London  exhibition  of  1851,  and  called  by  the 
high-sounding  name  of  a  World's  Fair.  The  edifice  was  ad- 
mirable. George  William  Curtis  called  it  Aladdin's  palace 
because  of  the  light  elegance  in  its  architectural  lines, 
which  were  "worthily  surmounted  and  crowned  by  the 
dome."  "  It  is,"  he  adds,  "  a  dome  of  Oriental  characteris- 
tics. But  there  is  nothing  in  architecture  more  pleasing. 
It  seems  to  have  been  borne  in  upon  a  zephyr,  and  the 
slightest  breath  would  lift  it  away.  Blown  like  a  bubble 
in  some  happy  moment  of  a  Jinn's  inspiration,  it  floats 
over  the  whole,  imparting  an  aerial  grace,  not  to  be  com- 
prehended without  being  seen."  * 

Karely  has  there  been  a  more  creditable  result  to  a  specu- 


by  which  Florence  lost  96,000  souls."  —  History  of  Florence,  Machia- 
velli.  "  In  Florence  there  died  of  the  black  plague  60,000 ;  in  Venice, 

100,000 ;  in  Paris,  50,000 ;  in  London,  at  least  100,000 In  all  Germany, 

according  to  a  probable  calculation,  there  seem  to  have  died  only  1,244,- 
434  inhabitants;  this  country  was,  however,  more  spared  than  others. 
Italy,  on  the  contrary,  was  most  severely  -,  isited.  It  is  said  to  have  lost 
half  of  its  inhabitants.  .  .  .  The  whole  period  during  which  the  black 
death  raged  with  destructive  violence  in  Europe  was,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  Russia,  from  the  year  1347  to  1350.  ...  Of  all  the  estimates  of 
the  number  of  lives  lost  in  Europe,  the  most  probable  is  that  altogether 
a  fourth  part  of  the  inhabitants  were  carried  off.  It  may  be  assumed 
without  exaggeration  that  Europe  lost  during  the  black  death  25,000,000 
of  inhabitants."  —  Hecker  on  the  Black  Death,  Buckle's  Commonplace 
Book,  p.  557.  The  plague  of  1349  "  probably  killed  a  third  of  the  popu- 
lation "  of  England.  The  Economic  Interpretation  of  History,  Thorold 
Rogers,  p.  22.  See  also  article  of  Andrew  D.  White,  Popular  Science 
Monthly,  Sept.,  1891. 

1  Harper's  Magazine,  Nov.,  1853,  p.  844. 


OH.V.]  THE   CRYSTAL  PALACE  EXHIBITION  415 

lative  enterprise.  No  sooner  was  the  building  begun  than  a 
furious  speculation  took  place  in  the  stock  of  the  company. 
The  shares  steadily  advanced  until  they  reached  eighty  per 
cent,  above  par.  The  President  opened  the  exhibition  ;  dis- 
tinguished people  from  the  country  and  Europe  were  pres- 
ent. It  was  not  asserted  that  the  fair  would  equal  its  Lon- 
don predecessor;  the  head  of  the  enterprise  said  that  the 
attempt  was  made  to  do  on  a  smaller  scale  what  had  been 
done  so  magnificently  in  London.1  The  exhibition  com- 
menced in  midsummer,  but  at  first  the  number  of  visitors 
was  small.  The  summer  was  hot,  and  in  August  there  oc- 
curred a  heated  spell  which  put  a  stop  to  business  and  pleas- 
ure. Nearly  everywhere  at  the  North  the  mercury  for  sev- 
eral days  was  at  100°  in  the  shade ;  in  New  York  City  two 
hundred  and  thirty  deaths  were  in  one  day  caused  by  the 
heat,  and  the  mortality  for  a  week  was  great.2  When  the 
cooler  days  of  September  came,  people  began  to  attend  the 
exhibition  and  appreciate  its  value.  Those  who  had  sneered 
at  the  enterprise  now  admired  the  display.  The  most 
graceful  commenter  on  passing  events  wrote  that  beneath 
the  dome  of  the  Crystal  Palace,  "  in  cheerful  rivalry  meet 
all  the  nations,  as  of  old  kings  met  upon  a  field  of  cloth  of 
gold.  But  this  is  a  tournament  of  friendship ;  this  is  a  joust 
of  justice.  Denmark  sends  the  solemn  group  of  Thorwald- 
sen,  and  France  her  rarest  and  most  delicate  tapestries  and 
porcelains,  and  England  her  solid  silver  and  earthen  ware, 
and  hydra -headed  Germany  a  hundred  varieties  in  every 
kind,  and  Italy,  Belgium,  and  Holland  each  their  best. 
While  America,  like  a  host  of  infinitely  various  hospitality, 
receives  each  with  a  kindred  welcome,  meeting  the  useful 
and  beautiful  of  every  art  and  of  every  country  upon  its 


1  See  article  "  Our  Crystal  Palace,"  by  Parke  Godwin,  Putnam's  Maga- 
zine, Aug.,  1853. 

*  New  York  Tribune,  Harper's  Magazine,  and  American  Almanac. 
Official  reports  from  the  Smithsonian  Institution  show  1853  to  be  the 
hottest  summer  since  1798.  New  Orleans  Picayune,  Aug.  23d,  1853. 


416  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1853 

own  ground.  .  .  .  The  true  success  of  the  exhibition  lies  in 
its  justification  of  the  American  pride.  We  have  grown 
tired  of  hearing  that  we  were  such  a  great  nation ;  but  the 
Crystal  Palace  inclines  us  to  tolerate  the  boast.  It  will 
teach  us  the  high-minded  humility  we  want,  by  showing  us 
what  actual  and  undeniable  successes  we  have  achieved. 
Lyons  and  Manchester  and  Paris  and  Vienna  must  look  to 
their  laurels."  * 

The  material  progress  of  the  country  was,  indeed,  great. 
Eailroads  were  building  everywhere.  The  extension  of  the 
system  was  bringing  the  rich  grain-fields  of  the  prairies  into 
easy  communication  with  the  seaboard ;  and  as  the  iron  rails 
were  laid  westward,  the  comforts  and  luxuries  of  civilization 
were  brought  within  the  reach  of  the  pioneers.  But  the  op- 
eration of  the  railroads  left  much  to  be  desired.  Travelling 
was  attended  with  danger.  In  the  first  eight  months  of  the 
year  sixty-five  fatal  railroad  accidents  occurred,  one  hundred 
and  seventy-seven  persons  were  killed,  and  three  hundred 
and  thirty -three  injured.2  These  accidents  were  for  the 
most  part  charged  against  the  carelessness  of  the  officials,  the 
greed  of  the  directors,  and  the  desire  of  the  public  for  high 
speed.  "  Our  fast  age  is  growing  rapidly  faster,"  wrote  the 
moralist  of  the  time;8  and  while  the  journals  and  maga- 
zines inveighed  against  the  railroad  management,  and  each 
casualty  caused  a  fresh  outburst  of  indignation,  this  was 
succeeded  by  indifference,  and  nothing  was  done  to  remedy 
the  evil.  It  could  hardly  be  denied,  therefore,  that  a  disre- 
gard of  human  life  characterized  the  nation. 

Contemporaneous  with  the  glorification  of  our  industries 
by  the  Crystal  Palace  exhibition  came  a  vigorous  assertion 
from  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  power  and  protection 
afforded  by  American  nationality,  which  caused  deep  exulta- 
tation.  Martin  Koszta,  a  Hungarian,  took  part  in  the  un« 


1  Editor's  Easy  Chair,  Harper's  Magazine,  Nov.,  1853,  p.  844. 

9  New  York  Herald,  quoted  by  De  Bow's  Review,  Oct.,  1853,  p.  429. 

'  Harper's  Magazine,  July,  1853,  p.  272. 


MARTIN  KOSZTA  417 

successful  revolution  of  1848,  escaped  to  Turkey,  was  con- 
fined there  for  a  while,  and  then  came  to  the  United  States, 
where  he  declared,  under  oath  and  before  a  proper  officer, 
his  intention  to  become  a  citizen  of  this  country.  After  re- 
siding here  nearly  two  years  he  returned  to  Smyrna,  Tur- 
key, upon  business  of  a  temporary  nature,  and  placed  him- 
self under  the  protection  of  the  American  consul.  The 
Austrian  consul-general  tried  to  get  authority  from  the 
Turkish  governor  for  his  arrest,  but,  failing  in  this,  insti- 
gated some  desperadoes  to  kidnap  him.  He  was  taken  on 
board  the  Austrian  brig-of-war  the  Huszar,  and  put  in  irons. 
The  American  representatives  made  the  proper  protests,  but 
the  demand  for  his  release  was  unsuccessful.  Meanwhile 
there  arrived  in  the  harbor  of  Smyrna  the  United  States 
sloop -of -war  Saint  Louis,  under  the  command  of  Captain 
Ingraham,  who,  becoming  convinced  that  a  design  was  set 
on  foot  by  the  Austrian  officials  to  remove  Koszta  clandes- 
tinely to  Trieste,  an  Austrian  port,  demanded  his  release, 
and  to  enforce  it  brought  the  guns  of  the  Saint  Louis  to 
bear  upon  the  Huszar.  A  compromise,  however,  was  effect- 
ed, by  virtue  of  which  the  prisoner  was  delivered  to  the  cus- 
tody of  the  French  consul-general  until  the  two  governments 
should  agree  in  regard  to  his  disposal.  The  Austrian  gov- 
ernment addressed  to  various  courts  a  protest  against  the 
action  of  Captain  Ingraham,  and  instructed  Hiilsemann,  the 
imperial  charge  d'affaires  at  Washington,  to  ask  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  "  not  to  interpose  any  obstacle  to 
the  extradition  of  Koszta  to  Austria,"  "  to  disavow  the  con- 
duct of  its  agents,"  and  "  to  call  them  to  a  severe  account 
and  tender  to  Austria  a  satisfaction  proportionate  to  the  mag- 
nitude of  the  outrage."  Such  an  opportunity  could  make 
Marcy  well  believe  that  the  stars  were  in  his  favor.  Ar- 
dently desiring  the  next  Democratic  nomination  for  Presi- 
dent, he  set  himself  to  write  a  diplomatic  paper  that  should 
gain  the  good -will  of  the  people.  He  acquitted  himself, 
however,  with  credit  and  dignity,  equal  to  that  of  Webster 
and  Everett  on  similar  occasions.  His  reply  to  Hiilsemann 
L— 27 


418  PJERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1868 

is  a  state-paper  carefully  considered  and  clearly  expressed ; 
and  while  it  may  be  criticised  as  raising  too  many  questions, 
the  main  reason  for  refusing  Austria's  request  is  cogently 
argued,  and,  to  an  American,  his  position  seems  irrefutable. 
This  manifesto  had  a  remarkable  reception,  not  confined  to 
section  or  party,  and  for  the  moment  Marcy  was  certainly 
the  most  popular  man  in  the  United  States. 

From  a  careful  and  precise  statement  of  the  facts,  the 
Secretary  of  State  shows  that  "  Koszta  was  seized  without 
any  rightful  authority."  And  although  he  had  not  yet  be- 
come a  naturalized  citizen,  he  had  established  his  domicile 
in  the  United  States  and  become  thereby  clothed  with  the 
national  character;  "he  retained  that  character  when  he 
was  seized  at  Smyrna ;  ...  he  acquired  the  right  to  claim 
protection  from  the  United  States,  and  they  had  the  right  to 
extend  it  to  him."  The  course  of  Captain  Ingraham  was 
fully  justified,  the  disavowal  of  the  acts  of  American  agents 
refused,  the  satisfaction  asked  for  by  Austria  respectfully 
declined,  and  the  request  to  put  no  obstacles  in  the  way  of 
the  delivery  of  Koszta  to  the  Austrian  consul-general  at 
Smyrna  was  denied.  Marcy  made  one  declaration  which, 
though  savoring  of  the  stump-speech,  was  of  a  nature  to 
thrill  the  American  heart  with  delight,  for  never  had  the 
national  aggressiveness  been  so  strong  as  at  this  time. 
"  Whenever,"  he  wrote,  "  by  the  operation  of  the  law  of  na- 
tions, an  individual  becomes  clothed  with  our  national  char- 
acter, be  he  a  native-born  or  naturalized  citizen,  an  exile 
driven  from  his  early  home  by  political  oppression,  or  an 
emigrant  enticed  from  it  by  the  hopes  of  a  better  fortune 
for  himself  and  his  posterity,  he  can  claim  the  protection  of 
this  government,  and  it  may  respond  to  that  claim  without 
being  obliged  to  explain  its  conduct  to  any  foreign  power ; 
for  it  is  its  duty  to  make  its  nationality  respected  by  other 
nations  and  respectable  in  every  quarter  of  the  globe."  Yet 
there  was  little  of  buncombe  about  Marcy's  paper.  His  im- 
portant point  was  well  taken  and  has  been  sustained  by  em- 
inent American  authorities  on  international  law;  and  his 


CH.V.]  MARTIN  KOSZTA  419 

successors  in  the  State  department  have  followed  the  prin- 
ciple he  laid  down.  In  the  end  Koszta  was  allowed  to  re- 
turn to  the  United  States.  Congress  showed  its  satisfaction 
by  a  joint  resolution  thanking  Captain  Ingraham  and  con- 
ferring on  him  a  medal.1 

The  President  needed  all  the  glory  he  could  get  from  the 
State  department  to  prevent  his  administration  from  sinking 
into  contempt.  Undoubtedly  the  most  popular  man  in  the 
country  when  he  delivered  his  inaugural  address,  he  was, 
by  the  time  that  he  sent  his  first  message  to  Congress,  re- 
garded by  most  of  the  leaders  of  his  own  party  as  incom- 
petent for  his  position.  To  distribute  the  offices  in  a  man- 
ner that  should  subserve  the  best  interests  of  the  party 


1  See  Executive  Documents,  1st  Sess.  33d  Cong.,  vol.  i.  part  1,  House 
Document  1.  Marcy's  doctrine  is  approved  by  Woolsey,  International 
Law,  §  81,  and  in  a  qualified  way  by  G.  B.  Davis,  Outlines  of  International 
Law,  p.  105.  Calvo,  the  eminent  South  American  authority,  sustains 
Marcy.  See  Wharton,  §  198.  Halleck's  International  Law,  edited  by 
Sir  Sherston  Baker,  Bart.,  an  English  barrister,  thoroughly  supports 
Marcy's  position,  and  says  the  allegations  of  the  Austrian  government 
"  were  most  clearly  and  satisfactorily  disproved  in  the  masterly  despatch 
of  Mr.  Marcy,"  vol.  i.  p.  202.  See  also  Boyd's  edition  of  Wheaton ;  also 
Woolsey's  International  Law,  sixth  edition  (1891),  Appendix  III.  Hall, 
however,  an  English  authority,  says,  "Marcy's  contention  was  wholly 
destitute  of  legal  foundation,"  International  Law,  §  72.  Marcy's  position 
is  questioned  by  Von  Hoist,  vol.  iv.  p.  280,  who  adds :  "  The  question  is 
permissible,  too,  whether  both  Ingraham  and  the  President  would  not 
have  proceeded  more  gently  if  they  had  had  to  do  with  England  instead 
of  Austria."  This  statement  leads  me  to  emphasize  what  I  have  already 
alluded  to  in  the  text.  The  fact  is,  that  the  American  of  1853  feared  no 
nation,  and  thought  his  country  fully  able  to  cope  with  any  European 
power.  Marcy  was  too  good  a  lawyer  and  too  just  a  man  to  take  an  un- 
tenable attitude  towards  a  weak  nation,  and  too  brave  not  to  maintain  the 
rights  of  his  country  against  a  strong  nation.  Moreover,  nothing  pleased 
one  section  of  the  Democratic  party  better  than  to  defy  England;  and  as 
the  Crimean  war  was  already  looming  in  the  distance,  no  Democratic 
Secretary  of  State  would  have  bated  a  jot  of  a  just  demand  on  England. 
For  public  opinion  in  the  matter,  see  Harper's  Magazine,  Nov.,  1853, 
p.  834,  and  Dec.,  1853,  p.  130 ;  also  the  debate  in  Congress. 


420  PIEBCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1853 

would  have  been  an  herculean  task  for  a  wise  man,  but  the 
inherent  difficulty  of  the  situation  was  increased  by  the 
President's  lack  of  executive  ability.  He  would  make  up 
his  mind  in  the  morning  and  change  it  in  the  afternoon. 
He  would  receive  an  applicant  for  office  effusively,  put  on 
his  most  urbane  manner,  listen  to  the  claim  with  attention, 
giving  the  aspirant  for  public  place  every  reason  to  feel  that 
the  position  was  surely  his.  For  Franklin  Pierce  could  not 
say  no ;  and  when  he  was  not  able  to  give  a  direct  promise, 
he  would  give  an  implied  one.  This  failing  caused  him 
trouble  without  end.  In  more  than  one  case  the  same  im- 
portant office  was  promised  to  two  different  men,  and  indi- 
rect assurances  of  executive  favor  were  almost  as  numerous 
as  visitors  at  the  White  House. 

It  was  a  common  saying  that  Pierce  treated  everybody 
with  the  same  marked  kindness  and  seeming  confidence.1 
People  soon  perceived  that  the  President  lacked  firmness, 
and  by  the  time  that  Congress  assembled  there  had  arisen 
general  distrust  of  his  capacity.  No  one  could  deny  that  he 
had  grown  less  by  his  elevation,  like  a  little  statue  on  a 
great  pedestal. 

In  !N"ew  York  State,  Pierce  was  accused  of  being  tinctured 
with  Free-soilism,  because  in  the  distribution  of  the  patron- 
age his  personal  affiliations  had  led  him  to  lean  to  the  fac- 
tion of  Softs.  Marcy's  influence,  moreover,  was  very  appar- 
ent and  was  exercised  in  a  manner  to  take  care  of  the  faction 
of  which  he  was  the  admitted  chief.  But  in  Massachusetts 
the  liberty-loving  Democrats  were  alienated ;  for  Gushing, 
who  unquestionably  had  the  ear  of  the  President,  had  writ- 
ten a  letter  which  gave  no  uncertain  sound  on  the  slavery 
question.  "  If,"  wrote  the  Attorney-General, "  there  be  any 
purpose  more  fixed  than  another  in  the  mind  of  the  Presi- 
dent and  those  with  whom  he  is  accustomed  to  consult,  it  is 
that  that  dangerous  element  of  abolitionism,  under  whatever 


1  "The  President  has  a  very  -winning  way  in  his  manners." — Seward 
to  his  wife,  March  80th,  1858,  Life  of  Seward,  vol.  ii.  p.  202. 


CH.V.J  THE  THIRTY-THIRD  CONGRESS  421 

guise  or  form  it  may  present  itself,  shall  be  crushed  out  so 
far  as  this  administration  is  concerned." ' 

In  one  part  of  the  South,  however,  Pierce  was  regarded 
as  an  abolitionist,  for  it  was  believed  that  John  Yan  Buren, 
the  soul  of  the  Democratic  Free-soil  movement,  was  closeted 
daily  with  him  and  had  undisguised  influence  with  the  ad- 
ministration ;  while  in  Mississippi,  where  the  contest  between 
the  Union  and  the  secession  faction  had  been  bitter,  it  was 
thought  that  Pierce  had  thrown  himself  into  the  arms  of 
the  states-rights  men,  from  his  avowed  political  and  per- 
sonal friendship  with  Jefferson  Davis.3  But  in  spite  of  fac- 
tional disaffection,  the  position  of  the  President  and  the 
Democratic  party  was  apparently  an  enviable  one  when 
Congress  came  together  on  the  first  Monday  of  December. 
In  the  Senate  there  were  thirty-seven  Democrats,  twenty-one 
Whigs,  and  two  Free-soilers ;  in  the  House  there  were  one 
hundred  and  fifty-nine  Democrats,  seventy-one  Whigs,  and 
four  Free-soilers.  Moreover,  the  unpopularity  of  the  admin- 
istration with  the  leaders  and  politicians  of  the  party  had 
not  spread  to  the  mass  of  voters.  Indeed,  it  would  not  have 
been  surprising  had  the  Democrats  lost  ground  in  the  elec- 
tions of  1853  as  compared  with  their  remarkable  success 
one  year  earlier.  After  such  an  astounding  victory,  under 
ordinary  circumstances  even,  a  reaction  might  have  been  ex- 
pected. It  is  now  a  maxim  in  American  politics  that  the 
first  year  of  a  new  administration  is  the  trying  one ;  and  it 
was  undeniable  that  the  difficulties  of  the  unfavorable  year 
had  been  increased  by  many  unwise  acts  on  the  part  of  the 
President.  Yet  with  one  notable  exception,  there  was  no 
evidence  of  this  in  the  State  elections  of  the  year,  for  where 
they  occurred  every  State  that  had  voted  for  Pierce  but 
New  York  went  Democratic.  Here  the  Hards  and  Softs 
each  nominated  a  State  ticket,  which  resulted  in  a  plurality 


1  This  letter  was  published  in  the  New  York  Tribune  of  Nov.  3d. 
a  See  Foote's  speech  at  a  public  dinner  at  Washington,  Richmond 
Whig,  Jan.  24th,  1854. 


422  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1863 

for  the  Whigs,  but  the  combined  Democratic  vote  was  thirty 
thousand  in  excess  of  that  received  by  the  Whig  candidates. 
As  a  partial  set-off,  Tennessee,  which  Scott  had  carried,  now 
elected  a  Democratic  governor,  and  some  States  gave  in- 
creased Democratic  majorities  as  compared  with  the  presi- 
dential year.  Thus,  the  Democrats  had  not  only  the  execu- 
tive and  a  large  majority  in  Congress,  but  they  had  the 
governors  and  the  legislatures  of  nearly  every  State. 

The  President  in  his  message  to  Congress  mentioned  that 
negotiations  were  on  foot  with  Great  Britain  to  settle  a  dis- 
pute about  the  fisheries  and  certain  embarrassing  questions 
which  had  arisen  between  the  two  governments  regarding 
Central  America.  The  relations  with  Spain  were  touched 
upon  lightly,  and  no  inkling  was  given  of  the  scheme  of 
which  the  minds  of  the  President  and  his  Southern  advisers 
were  full.  There  being  a  surplus  of  revenue  over  expendi- 
tures, it  was  Pierce's  opinion  that  the  reduction  of  the  tariff 
was  a  matter  of  great  importance,  and  he  asked  a  careful  and 
candid  consideration  of  the  plan  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  which  was  "  to  reduce  the  duties  on  certain  arti- 
cles, and  to  add  to  the  free  list  many  articles  now  taxed,  and 
especially  such  as  enter  into  manufactures,  and  are  not  large- 
ly, or  at  all,  produced  in  this  country."  He  also  recom- 
mended to  Congress  that  it  should  aid  by  all  constitutional 
means  the  construction  of  a  railroad  to  the  Pacific  coast. 

This  Congress  would  have  been  notable  for  a  reduction 
of  the  tariff,  and  still  more  notable  for  giving  a  start  to  a 
railroad  across  the  continent,  had  there  not  been  in  the 
Senate  a  man  powerful  enough  to  change  the  course  of  his- 
tory. 

The  Democratic  party  now  occupied  high  vantage-ground. 
It  certainly  never  entered  the  heads  of  that  party's  mag- 
nates that  anything  could  endanger  its  supremacy  in  the 
government  for  many  years ;  and  he  would  have  been  in- 
deed a  rash  Whig  who  cast  a  doubt  on  the  prediction  that 
the  Democrats  had  secured  for  themselves  a  long  lease  of 
power.  The  nearly  unanimous  opinion  of  the  country  was 


CH.V.]  PIERCE  AND   HIS  PARTY  423 

that  he  who  should  receive  the  Democratic  nomination 
for  President  in  1856  would  be  elected,  and  that  without  a 
formidable  opposition.  Never  in  the  history  of  the  party, 
when  the  nomination  had  been  open  to  active  competition, 
had  it  seemed  so  glittering  and  sure  a  prize.  Pierce  had 
tasted  the  sweets  of  office  and  wanted  to  succeed  himself.1 
Puffed  up  with  the  vanity  of  power,  looking  on  everything 
with  an  optimistic  eye,  full  of  good  humor  with  himself  and 
the  world,  he  little  dreamed  of  the  attacks  on  him  which 
were  whispered  in  corners  or  talked  openly  on  the  streets.3 
If  he  saw,  or  heard  of,  the  criticisms  in  the  newspapers  of 
his  own  party,  he  could  ascribe  them  in  the  main  to  ungrati- 
fied  desires ;  and  before  Democratic  members,  on  the  floor  of 
the  House,  called  in  question  his  motives  and  policy,  a  pub- 
lic measure  engrossed  his  attention  and  made  this  factional 
contest  seem  like  a  petty  quarrel. 

The  four  prominent  candidates  of  1852  still  cast  long- 
ing eyes  on  the  next  Democratic  nomination  for  President. 
Marcy 3  felt  that  he  had  gained  an  advantage  in  the  Koszta 
affair ;  but  if  Cuba  could  be  honorably  acquired,  he  was  cer- 
tain that  the  people  would  call  him,  instead  of  the  President, 
the  second  Jefferson. 

Buchanan  had  accepted  the  English  mission  with  reluc- 
tance, because  the  negotiations  in  regard  to  all  the  disputed 
questions  between  this  country  and  Great  Britain  had  not 
been  put  in  his  hands.  The  Central  American  affair  was 


1  As  early  as  May,  1853,  this  was  noted  by  Buchanan :  "  I  had  not  been 
in  "Washington  many  days  before  I  clearly  discovered  that  the  President 
and  his  cabinet  were  intent  upon  his  renomination  and  re-election." — 
Life  of  Buchanan,  Curtis,  vol.  ii.  p.  80. 

5  An  occasional  correspondent  of  the  New  York  Evening  Post,  who 
knew  Pierce  well,  gives  a  noteworthy  account  of  the  impression  he  got 
on  seeing  the  President  at  about  this  time.  See  the  Post,  Feb.  13th, 
1854. 

3  Buchanan  thought  in  May,  1853,  that  Governor  Marcy  would  "  prob- 
ably cherish  until  the  day  of  his  death  the  anxious  desire  to  become 
President."— Curtis,  vol.  ii.  p.  80. 


424  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1864 

confided  to  him,  but  out  of  that  little  glory  was  to  be  had.1 
He  had  written -a  public  letter  stating  his  intention  to  retire 
from  active  politics  on  the  completion  of  his  mission,2  but 
his  rivals  regarded  those  expressions  as  conventional  rather 
than  sincere.  A  private  letter  written  by  Buchanan  soon 
after  his  arrival  in  England  is  evidence  that  he  mentally  re- 
served a  loop-hole  through  which  he  might  evade  this  posi- 
tive declaration.  "  I  have  neither  the  desire  nor  the  inten- 
tion," he  wrote, "  again  to  become  a  candidate  for  the  presi- 
dency. On  the  contrary,  this  mission  is  tolerable  to  me  alone 
because  it  will  enable  me  gracefully  and  gradually  to  retire 
from  an  active  participation  in  party  politics.  .  .  .  But 
while  these  are  the  genuine  sentiments  of  my  heart,  I  do 
not  think  I  ought  to  say  that  in  no  imaginable  state  of  cir- 
cumstances would  I  consent  to  be  nominated  as  a  candi- 
date."3 

General  Cass  had  not  yet  given  up  all  hope  of  the  presi- 
dency, and  there  was  considerable  rivalry  between  him  and 
Douglas,  as  they  were  both  representatives  of  the  North- 
west. Douglas  was  the  boldest  of  all  the  aspirants,  and  on 
the  1st  day  of  January,  1854,  of  the  five  candidates  for  the 
Democratic  succession  he  was  the  least  popular  with  the 
South.  He  had  not  grown  in  favor  since  1852,  when  he  had 
the  smallest  following  from  that  section  in  the  convention 
which  nominated  Pierce.  Although  Douglas  had  married  a 
Southern  lady  and  had  agreeable  personal  relations  at  the 
South,  the  politicians  did  not  trust  him.  It  may  be  that 
they  thought  he  was  too  practical  a  champion  of  free  labor, 
for  he  liked  to  boast  of  his  early  poverty  and  the  fact  that 
when  a  boy  he  had  worked  at  a  trade.  The  result  of  the 
previous  convention,  however,  had  taught  Douglas  that  he 
could  not  be  nominated  without  the  aid  of  Southern  votes. 
He  might  get  nearly  the  whole  support  of  the  West  and  he 
might  hope  for  assistance  from  New  York,  but  he  could  ex- 


1  Life  of  Buchanan,  Curtis,  vol.  ii.  p.  92  et  ante.  8  Ibid.,  p.  93. 

8  Letter  to  Ben:  Perley  Poore,  Reminiscences,  vol.  i.  p.  437. 


OH.V.]  STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS  425 

pect  nothing  from  New  England  and  Pennsylvania.  While 
the  term  "  the  solid  South "  had  not  come  into  use,  politi- 
cians were  beginning  to  think  what  a  force  there  might  be  in 
the  fact.  The  South  would  have  one  hundred  and  seventeen 
votes  in  the  next  convention,  and,  since  it  was  pretty  well 
understood  that  there  was  no  chance  of  the  nomination  of  a 
Southern  man,  it  was  evident  that  if  this  strength  could  be 
concentrated  on  a  favorite  son  of  the  North,  it  would,  added 
to  his  home  support,  assure  him  the  nomination.  Thoughts 
and  calculations  like  these  must  have  passed  through  Doug- 
las's mind  during  his  trip  of  recreation  to  Europe  the  pre- 
ceding summer;  and  when  he  came  to  "Washington  to  survey 
the  ground,  one  way  was  manifest  in  which  he  might  com- 
mend himself  to  Southern  favor.  The  acquisition  of  Cuba 
was  out  of  his  province.  While  free  trade  was  popular  at 
the  South,  the  senator  had  no  taste  for  economical  questions, 
and  the  Pacific  railroad  was  a  Western  measure.  But  the 
organization  of  the  new  territories  might  be  handled  in  a 
satisfactory  manner ;  this,  moreover,  was  the  favorite  field 
of  Douglas,  and  he  was  chairman  of  the  committee  on  terri- 
tories. A  bill  for  the  organization  of  the  territory  of  Ne- 
braska had  passed  the  House  at  the  previous  session  and  was 
reported  to  the  Senate.  This  bill  was  in  the  usual  form,  but 
made  no  reference  whatever  to  slavery.  It  encountered  op- 
position in  the  Senate,  as  involving  bad  faith  with  the  In- 
dians ;  and  as  it  came  up  late  in  the  session,  there  was  not 
sufficient  time  for  its  consideration,  so  it  failed  to  become  a 
law.  The  same  bill  was  introduced  into  the  Senate  in  De- 
cember, 1853,  and  referred  to  the  committee  on  territories.1 
On  the  4th  of  January,  1854,  Douglas  made  a  report  which 
was  the  introduction  to  a  project  whose  importance  cannot 


1  It  is  well  to  bear  in  mind  that  so  far  as  any  affirmative  legislation 
was  concerned,  the  committee  on  territories  was  Douglas.  It  was  com- 
posed of  Douglas,  Johnson  of  Arkansas,  Jones  of  Iowa,  Houston,  Dem- 
ocrats, and  Bell  and  Everett,  Whigs.  The  last  three  named  are  well- 
known  men,  but  were  all  opposed  to  the  Nebraska  bill. 


426  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1854 

be  overestimated.  The  territory  of  Nebraska  comprised 
what  is  now  *'  the  States  of  Kansas,  Nebraska,  the  Dakotas, 
Montana,  part  of  Colorado,  and  Wyoming.  It  was  part  oi 
the  Louisiana  purchase,  and  contained  four  hundred  and 
eighty-five  thousand  square  miles,  a  territory  more  than  ten 
times  as  large  as  New  York,  and  larger  by  thirty -three  thou- 
sand square  miles  than  all  the  free  States  then  in  the  Union 
east  of  the  Rocky  Mountains.  In  this  magnificent  domain 
were  less  than  one  thousand  white  inhabitants ;  but  as  soon  as 
it  should  be  opened  to  settlement  by  proper  legislation,  there 
was  certain  to  be  a  large  immediate  increase  of  population.3 
This  report  of  Douglas's  began  with  the  announcement  of 
the  discovery  of  a  great  principle  which  had  been  established 
by  the  compromise  measures  of  1850.  They  "  were  intend- 
ed to  have  a  far  more  comprehensive  and  enduring  effect 
than  the  mere  adjustment  of  difficulties  arising  out  of  the 
recent  acquisition  of  Mexican  territory.  They  were  de- 
signed to  establish  certain  great  principles,  which  would  not 
only  furnish  adequate  remedies  for  existing  evils,  but,  in  all 
time  to  come,  avoid  the  perils  of  similar  agitation  by  with- 
drawing the  question  of  slavery  from  the  halls  of  Congress 
and  the  political  arena,  committing  it  to  the  arbitration  of 
those  who  were  immediately  interested  in,  and  alone  respon- 
sible for,  its  consequences.  ...  A  question  has  arisen  in  re- 
gard to  the  right  to  hold  slaves  in  the  territory  of  Nebraska, 
when  the  Indian  laws  shall  be  withdrawn  and  the  country 
thrown  open  to  emigration  and  settlement.  ...  It  is  a  dis- 
puted point  whether  slavery  is  prohibited  in  the  Nebraska 
country  by  valid  enactment.  ...  In  the  opinion  of  those 


'  In  1890. 

*  One  of  the  objections  made  to  the  organization  of  the  territory  was 
on  account  of  insufficient  population,  but  it  was  not  well  taken.  Doug- 
las was  well  informed  on  this  point,  and  showed  clearly  that  if  the  re- 
strictions in  favor  of  the  Indians  were  removed,  there  would  be  a  large 
influx  of  settlers.  Benton,  who  opposed  the  Nebraska  bill  of  Douglas, 
was  positive  that  a  territorial  government  ought  to  be  at  once  estab- 
lished for  Nebraska.  See  Harper's  Magazine,  Dec.,  1853,  p.  121. 


CH.  V.]        DOUGLAS'S  REPORT  ON  NEBRASKA          427 

eminent  statesmen  who  hold  that  Congress  is  invested  with 
no  rightful  authority  to  legislate  upon  the  subject  of  slavery 
in  the  territories,  the  eighth  section  of  the  act  preparatory 
to  the  admission  of  Missouri  is  null  and  void."  The  reader 
may  be  reminded  that  the  gist  of  the  Missouri  Compromise 
lay  in  this  eighth  section,  which  provided  that  slavery  should 
be  prohibited  in  all  the  Louisiana  territory  lying  north  of 
36°  30'  north  latitude,  not  included  within  the  limits  of  the 
State  of  Missouri.  Douglas's  report  continued  :  "  The  pre- 
vailing sentiment  in  large  portions  of  the  Union  sustains 
the  doctrine  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  se- 
cures to  every  citizen  an  inalienable  right  to  move  into  any 
of  the  territories  with  his  property,  of  whatever  kind  and 
description,  and  to  hold  and  enjoy  the  same  under  the  sanc- 
tion of  law."  Yet  the  committee  did  not  propose  to  recom- 
mend the  affirmation  or  the  repeal  of  the  eighth  section  of 
the  Missouri  act.  The  report  concluded  with  the  statement, 
"  The  compromise  measures  of  1850  affirm  and  rest  upon  the 
following  propositions : 

"First — That  all  questions  pertaining  to  slavery  in  the 
territories,  and  the  new  States  to  be  formed  therefrom,  are 
to  be  left  to  the  decision  of  the  people  residing  therein, 
by  their  appropriate  representatives,  to  be  chosen  by  them 
for  that  purpose. 

"  Second — That  <  all  cases  involving  title  to  slaves '  and 
'  questions  ^of  personal  freedom '  are  to  be  referred  to  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  local  tribunals,  with  the  right  of  appeal 
to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 

"Third — That  the  provision  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  in  respect  to  fugitives  from  service  is  to  be 
carried  into  faithful  execution  in  all  'the  organized  terri- 
tories/ the  same  as  in  the  States." 

The  bill  reported  by  the  committee  as  first  printed 
contained  the  provision  that  the  territory  of  Nebraska, 
or  any.  portion  of  the  same,  when  admitted  as  a  State  or 
States,  "shall  be  received  into  the  Union  with  or  without 
slavery,  as  their  Constitution  may  prescribe  at  the  time 


428  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1864 

of  their  admission."  This  language  was  borrowed  from 
the  Utah  and  New  Mexico  bills,  which  were  a  part  of  the 
compromise  of  1850.  Three  days  after  the  bill  was  first 
printed  another  section  was  added,  which  incorporated  into 
the  bill  these  closing  propositions  of  the  committee's  re- 
port. 

Douglas  professed  to  have  discovered  a  way  by  which  the 
slavery  question  might  be  put  to  rest.  But  everybody  North 
and  South,  as  well  as  Douglas  himself,  knew  that  this  report 
would  certainly  open  up  again  the  agitation.  The  country 
was  at  peace.  Business  was  good;  evidences  of  smiling 
prosperity  were  everywhere  to  be  seen.  The  spirit  of  enter- 
prise was  rampant ;  great  works  were .  in  progress,  others 
were  projected.  Political  repose  was  a  marked  feature  of 
the  situation.  The  slavery  question  seemed  settled,  and  the 
dream  of  the  great  compromisers  of  1850  seemed  to  be  real- 
ized. Every  foot  of  land  in  the  States  or  in  the  territories 
seemed  to  have,  so  far  as  slavery  was  concerned,  a  fixed  and 
settled  character.  The  obnoxious  part  of  the  compromise  to 
the  North,  the  Fugitive  Slave  law,  was  no  longer  resisted. 
Another  era  of  good  feeling  appeared  to  have  set  in.  The 
earnest  hope  of  Clay,  that  the  work  in  which  he  had  so 
large  a  share  would  give  the  country  rest  from  slavery  agi- 
tation for  a  generation,  did  not  seem  vain.  There  has  been 
restored,  said  the  President  in  his  message,  "a  sense  of 
repose  and  security  to  the  public  mind  throughout  the 
confederacy."  This  quiet  was  ruthlessly  disturbed  by 
Douglas's  report,  which,  though  professing  in  one  part  not 
to  repeal  the  Missouri  Compromise,  closed  with  a  prop- 
osition which  certainly  set  it  aside.  The  Missouri  Com- 
promise forever  prohibited  slavery  in  what  was  now  the 
territory  of  Nebraska.  Douglas  proposed  to  leave  to  the 
inhabitants  of  Nebraska  the  decision  as  to  whether  or  not 
they  would  have  slavery.  From  the  circumstances  under 
which  the  Missouri  Compromise  was  enacted,  from  the  fact 
that  it  received  the  seal  of  constitutionality  from  an  impar- 
tial President  and  a  thoroughly  representative  cabinet,  it 


POLITICAL  REPOSE  DISTURBED  BY  DOUGLAS  429 

had  been  looked  upon  as  having  the  moral  force  of  an  arti- 
cle of  the  Constitution  itself.  For  what  purpose  was  the 
repose  of  the  country  disturbed  by  throwing  a  doubt  on  the 
constitutionality  and  application  of  an  act  which  had  been 
acquiesced  in  and  observed  by  both  parties  to  the  compact 
for  thirty-four  years  ? 

The  motives  which  actuate  men  who  alter  the  current  of 
their  time  are  ever  an  interesting  study ;  and  in  this  case  no 
confidential  letters  or  conversations  need  be  unearthed  to 
arrive  at  a  satisfactory  explanation.  We  may  use  the  ex- 
pression of  the  Independent  Democrats  in  Congress  and  say 
that  the  dearest  interests  of  the  people  were  made  "the 
mere  hazards  of  a  presidential  game ;"  or  we  may  employ 
the  words  of  John  Van  Buren,  an  astute  politician  who  was 
in  the  secrets  of  the  party,  and  ask,  "  Could  anything  but  a 
desire  to  buy  the  South  at  the  presidential  shambles  dictate 
such  an  outrage  ?" '  And  this  true  statement  and  the  in* 
ference  from  this  trenchant  question  explain  the  motives 
prompting  Douglas  to  this  action.  Even  those  who  were 
very  friendly  to  the  measure  did  not  scruple  openly  to  ex- 
press this  opinion.  One  wrote  that  Douglas  had  betrayed 
"  an  indiscreet  and  hasty  ambition ;" 3  another  granted  that 
the  object  of  Douglas  "  was  to  get  the  inside  track  in  the 
South." 8  The  defences  made  by  Douglas  and  his  friends 
at  the  time  and  in  the  succeeding  years,  when  his  political 
prospects  depended  upon  the  justification  of  his  course,  are 
shuffling  and  delusive.  None  are  satisfactory,  and  it  may 


1  Private  letter  of  John  Van  Buren  to  ex-Senator  Clemens,  Feb.  3d, 
1854,  published  in  the  New  York  Evening  Post,  Feb.  llth,  1854. 

*  Washington  correspondence  Richmond  Enquirer,  quoted  by  Rich- 
mond Whig,  Jan.  31st,  1854.     I  am  indebted  to  the  New  York  Historical 
Society  for  permission  to  examine  their  file  of  the  Richmond  Whig. 

*  New  York  Herald,  Feb.  21st.     I  am  indebted  to  the  Society  Library 
of  New  York  for  permission  to  examine  their  file  of  the  New  York  Herald 
and  the  New  York  Courier  and  Enquirer.     These  expressions  were  used 
after  the  formal  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  had  been  incorpo- 
rated into  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill. 


430  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1864 

with  confidence  be  affirmed  that  the  action  of  the  Illinois 
senator  was  a  bid  for  Southern  support  in  the  next  Demo- 
cratic convention.  In  truth,  Douglas  might  have  used  the 
words  of  Frederick  the  Great  when  he  began  the  unjust 
war  against  Austria  for  the  conquest  of  Silesia :  "  Ambition, 
interest,  the  desire  of  making  people  talk  about  me,  carried 
the  day,  and  I  decided  "  to  renew  the  agitation  of  slavery. 

Douglas  could  veil  his  own  ambition  under  the  wish  to 
promote  the  interest  of  the  Democratic  party  and,  historians 
appreciating  this,  have  readily  believed  that  he  said,  that 
his  party,  in  the  election  of  Pierce,  had  consumed  all  its 
powder,  and  therefore,  without  a  deep-reaching  agitation, 
it  would  have  no  more  ammunition  for  its  artillery.1  Yet 
it  was  patent  to  every  one — and  none  knew  it  better  than 
Douglas,  for  he  was  the  ablest  politician  of  the  party — that 
the  Democrats  needed  to  make  no  fresh  issue ;  that  to  let 
things  drift  along  and  not  turn  them  into  new  channels  was 
the  safest  course,  and  that  appeals  to  past  history  were  the 
best  of  arguments.  An  economical  administration,  a  reduc- 
tion of  the  tariff,  a  vigorous  and  just  foreign  policy,  were 
certain  to  keep  the  Democrats  in  power  as  long  as  man 
could  foresee.  There  was,  it  is  true,  one  element  of  uncer- 
tainty. The  factious  quarrel  in  New  York  had  led  to  defeat 
at  the  last  State  election ;  but  the  party  was  so  strong  that 
even  without  the  Empire  State  it  could  retain  its  ascendency 
in  the  nation,  and  there  was,  moreover,  good  reason  to  hope 
that  this  trouble  would  be  patched  up  before  another  presi- 
dential election. 

To  become  the  acknowledged  and  dominating  leader  of  so 
strong  a  party  seemed  to  an  ardent  partisan  an  object  worthy 
of  any  exertion  and  any  sacrifice.  It  was  the  ambition  of 
Douglas  to  hold  the  same  position  among  the  Democrats 
that  Clay  had  held  among  the  Whigs.  Clay  attained  that 
position  by  being  the  originator  of  important  legislative 


1  Kapp,  Geschichte  der  Sklaverei,  quoted  by  Von  Hoist,  vol.  iv.  p.  313. 
This  was  in  the  fall  of  1855. 


OH.  V.]          POLITICAL  REPOSE  DISTURBED  BY  DOUGLAS  431 

measures  and  by  carrying  them  to  a  successful  issue.  The 
ability  of  Douglas  lay  in  this  direction,  and  he,  like  Clay, 
was  a  natural  leader  of  men.  Indeed,  they  were  men  of 
similar  parts,  strong  natures  whose  private  vices  were 
hardly  hidden.  But  Clay  had  profound  moral  convictions 
which,  although  sometimes  set  at  naught  in  the  heat  of 
partisan  conflict,,  were  of  powerful  influence  in  his  political 
career ;  in  the  view  of  Douglas,  moral  ideas  had  no  place  in 
politics. 

Douglas  prepared  the  bill  without  consultation  with  any 
Southern  men.  It  was  submitted  first  to  two  Western  sena- 
tors, and,  after  their  approval  was  given,  was  shown  to  their 
Southern  friends.1  It  became  the  object  of  some  of  those  op- 
posed to  the  Nebraska  bill  to  show  that  the  project  was  dic- 
tated by  the  South.  Much  credence  was  given  to  a  boast  of 
senator  Atchison,  made  under  the  inspiration  of  the  invisible 
spirit  of  wine,  that  he  had  forced  Douglas  to  bring  in  such 
a  bill.1  It  was  also  charged  that  Toombs  and  Stephens  had 
been  the  potent  influence  which  had  brought  about  the  ac- 


1  This  was  the  statement  of  Douglas  in  the  Senate  in  1856,  Congres- 
sional Globe,  vol.  xxxiii.  p.  393.  I  have  never  seen  any  well-attested  evi- 
dence which  contradicts  this  statement.  Butler,  of  South  Carolina,  said 
in  the  Senate  during  the  debate :  "  I  have  had  very  little  to  do  with  this 
bill,  and  I  believe  the  South  has  had  very  little  to  do  with  the  provisions 
of  the  bill."  At  the  time  of  the  greatest  unpopularity  of  this  legislation, 
Douglas  said  in  the  Senate  (Feb.  23d,  1855):  "The  Nebraska  bill  was 
not  concocted  in  any  conclave,  night  or  day.  It  was  written  by  myself, 
at  my  own  house,  with  no  man  present.  Whatever  odium  there  is  at- 
tached to  it,  I  assume  it.  Whatever  of  credit  there  may  be,  let  the  pub- 
lic award  it  where  they  think  it  belongs."  The  earliest  premonition  of 
the  report  which  I  have  found  is  in  the  New  York  Herald  of  Jan.  2d, 
1854:  "It  is  understood  that  the  territory  of  Nebraska  is  to  be  admitted 
into  the  confederacy  upon  such  terms  as  will  leave  it  at  the  option  of  her 
people  to  make  it  either  a  slave  or  free  territory." 

8  This  speech  was  made  at  Atchison,  Kan.,  Sept.  26th,  1854,  reported 
in  the  Parkville  Luminary  Sept.  26th,  copied  in  the  New  York  Tribune 
Oct.  10th ;  see  also  the  New  York  Tribune,  June  4th,  1855,  and  see  Wil- 
son's  remarks  in  the  Senate,  April  14th,  1856. 


432  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1854 

tion.  The  Illinois  senator,  in  April,  1856,  denied  both  of  these 
imputations,1  and  all  the  circumstances  support  the  truth  of 
this  denial.8  Douglas  was  a  man  of  too  much  independence 
to  suffer  the  dictation  of  Atchison,  Toombs,  or  Stephens.  He 
always  wanted  to  lead,  and  was  never  content  to  follow. 

Immediately  on  the  publication  of  the  report  the  anti- 
slavery  people  of  the  North  took  alarm.  The  newspapers 
which  were  devoted  to  freedom  saw  the  point  at  once  and 
made  clear  the  scheme  which  was  in  progress.  One  journal 
said  it  was  a  "  proposition  to  turn  the  Missouri  Compromise 
into  a  juggle  and  a  cheat ;"  it  was  "  presented  in  so  bold 
and  barefaced  shape  that  it  is  quite  as  much  an  insult  as  it 
is  a  fraud." 3  Another  called  it  an  overt  attempt  to  over- 
ride the  Missouri  Compromise.4  Another  termed  the  proj- 
ect low  trickery,  which  deluded  the  South  with  the  idea  that 
it  would  legalize  slavery  in  Nebraska,  and  at  the  same  time 
cheated  the  North  "  with  a  thin  pretence  of  not  repealing 
the  existing  prohibition." 6  The  anti-slavery  press  respond- 
ed more  quickly  than  the  people  whose  sentiment  they  both 
represented  and  led.  The  people  of  the  South  were  as  much 
surprised  at  the  report  as  those  of  the  North.  Not  count- 
ing upon  Douglas  as  one  of  their  adherents  through  thick 
and  thin,  they  at  first  viewed  the  proposition  with  distrust, 


1  Congressional  Globe,  vol.  xxxiii.  p.  393. 

*  In  1886,  Jefferson  Davis,  in  a  letter  to  a  friend,  said :  "  So  far  as  I  know 
and  believe,  Douglas  and  Atchison  never  were  in  such  relation  to  each 
other  as  would  have  caused  Douglas  to  ask  Atchison's  help  in  preparing 
the  bill,  and  I  think  the  whole  discussion  shows  that  Douglas  originated 
the  bill,  and  for  a  year  or  two  vaunted  himself  on  its  paternity." — Me- 
moir of  Jefferson  Davis,  by  his  wife,  vol.  i.  p.  671. 

«  New  York  Evening  Post,  Jan.  7th,  1854. 

*  New  York  Tribune,  Jan.  llth,  1854. 

'  New  York  Independent,  Jan.  7th.  The  Herald,  which  approved  of  the 
report  of  Douglas,  said :  "  Senator  Douglas's  report  has  created  a  great 
sensation  among  the  abolitionists  and  their  aiders  and  abettors  in  this 
city.  Already  the  Post  and  Tribune — and  the  Times  will  soon  follow 
with  the  other  abolitionist  organs — are  out  in  full  swoop  against  the  re- 
port." 


DIXON'S  AMENDMENT  433 

and  some  even  regarded  it  as  "  a  snare  set  for  the  South."  * 
But  the  senators  and  representatives  from  the  slave-holding 
States  understood  the  matter  better  than  the  people  and  the 
press,  and  knew  that  Douglas  had  taken  a  long  stride  in  their 
direction.  As  he  could  not  retrace  his  steps,  he  could  there- 
fore be  easily  influenced  to  alter  his  bill  in  a  manner  that 
should  make  it  conform  pretty  nearly  to  their  cherished  wish. 

On  Monday,  the  16th  of  January,  Dixon,  a  Whig  senator 
from  Kentucky,  who  was  filling  the  unexpired  term  of  Henry 
Clay,  offered  an  amendment  to  the  Nebraska  act,  which  pro- 
vided in  set  terms  for  the  repeal  of  the  slavery-restriction 
feature  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  The  Senate  was  as- 
tonished and  Douglas  was  startled.  He  went  at  once  to 
Dixon's  seat  and  remonstrated  courteously  against  the 
amendment.  He  said  that  in  his  bill  he  had  used  almost 
the  same  words  which  were  employed  in  the  Utah  and  New 
Mexico  acts ;  and  as  they  were  a  part  of  the  compromise 
measures  of  1850,  he  hoped  that  Dixon,  who  had  been  a 
zealous  friend  of  that  adjustment,  would  do  nothing  to  in- 
terfere with  it  or  weaken  it  before  the  country.  Dixon  re- 
plied that  it  was  precisely  because  he  was  a  zealous  friend 
of  the  compromise  of  1850  that  he  had  introduced  the 
amendment ;  in  his  view,  the  Missouri  Compromise,  unless 
expressly  repealed,  would  continue  to  operate  in  the  Terri- 
tory of  Nebraska ;  and  while  the  bill  of  Douglas  affirmed 
the  principle  of  non-intervention,  this  amendment  was 
necessary  to  carry  it  legitimately  into  effect.  That  being 
the  well-considered  opinion  of  Dixon,  he  was  determined  to 
insist  upon  his  amendment.8 

On  the  17th  of  January,  Sumner  offered  an  amendment  to 


1  Richmond  Whig,  Jan.  20th ;  also  see  Cullom's  speech,  Congressional 
Globe,  vol.  xxix.  p.  54. 

a  Letter  of  Dixon  to  Henry  S.  Foote,  Sept.  30th,  1858,  Spring's  Kan- 
sas, p.  3 ;  Life  of  Douglas,  by  a  Member  of  the  Western  Bar,  New  York, 
1860.  Dixon's  letter  is  referred  to  by  Nicolay  and  Hay,  in  History  of  Lin- 
coln, as  haying  been  published  in  the  Louisville  Democrat,  Oct.  3d,  1858. 
L— 28 


434  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1854 

the  Nebraska  act  which  expressly  affirmed  the  slavery  re- 
striction  of  the  Missouri  Compromise. 

A  few  days  after  Dixon  had  surprised  the  Senate,  Doug- 
las called  to  see  him  and  invited  him  to  take  a  drive.  The 
conversation  turned  upon  the  subject  which  was  uppermost 
in  their  minds,  and,  to  the  great  delight  of  Dixon.  the  Illi- 
nois senator  proposed  to  take  charge  of  his  amendment  and 
incorporate  it  in  the  Nebraska  bill.  As  Dixon  reports  the 
familiar  talk,  Douglas  in  substance  said:  "I  have  become 
perfectly  satisfied  that  it  is  my  duty,  as  a  fair-minded  na- 
tional statesman,  to  co-operate  with  you  as  proposed  in  se- 
curing the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  restriction. 
It  is  due  to  the  South ;  it  is  due  to  the  Constitution,  hereto- 
fore palpably  infracted ;  it  is  due  to  that  character  for  con- 
sistency which  I  have  heretofore  labored  to  maintain.  The 
repeal,  if  we  can  effect  it,  will  produce  much  stir  and  com- 
motion in  the  free  States  of  the  Union  for  a  season.  I 
shall  be  assailed  by  demagogues  and  fanatics  there,  without 
stint  or  moderation.  Every  opprobrious  epithet  will  be  ap- 
plied to  me.  I  shall  probably  be  hung  in  effigy  in  many 
places.  It  is  more  than  probable  that  I  may  become  per- 
manently odious  among  those  whose  friendship  and  esteem 
I  have  heretofore  possessed.  This  proceeding  may  end  my 
political  career.  But,  acting  under  the  sense  of  duty  which 
animates  me,  I  am  prepared  to  make  the  sacrifice ;  I  will  do 
it."  Dixon  relates  that  Douglas  spoke  in  an  earnest  and 
touching  manner ;  the  Kentucky  senator  was  deeply  affect- 
ed and  showed  emotion  in  the  reply  that  he  made.  "  Sir," 
he  said,  "  I  once  recognized  you  as  a  demagogue,  a  mere 
party  manager,  selfish,  and  intriguing.  I  now  findr  you  a 
warm-hearted  and* sterling  patriot.  Go  forward  in  the  path- 
way of  duty  as  you  propose,  and  though  all  the  world  de- 
sert you,  I  never  witt"  l 

It  was  a  pretty  comedy.  The  words  of  Douglas  are  those 
of  a  self-denying  patriot,  and  not  those  of  a  man  who  was 


•  Letter  of  Dixon,  Life  of  Douglas,  p.  172. 


CH.  V.]  DIXON'S  AMENDMENT  435 

sacrificing  the  peace  of  his  country,  and,  as  it  turned  out, 
the  success  of  his  party,  to  his  own  personal  ambition.  Be- 
tween the  Monday  on  which  the  amendment  repealing  the 
Missouri  Compromise  was  introduced,  and  the  day  of  the 
drive  with  Dixon,  Douglas  resolved  to  take  a  further  step  in 
the  path  on  which  he. had  entered.  Of  course,  all  sorts  of 
influences  were  brought  to  bear  upon  him  by  Southern  men, 
and  there  was  one  powerful  argument  from  the  Democratic 
point  of  view.  While  the  difference  between  Democrats 
and  Whigs  at  the  South  was  no  longer  essential,  the  party 
organizations  remained  intact,  and  each  endeavored  to  win 
an  advantage  over  the  other  by  taking  more  pronounced 
ground  in  the  interest  of  slavery.  It  would  not  do,  there- 
fore, to  have  a  measure  of  so  obvious  advantage  to  the  South 
fathered  by  a  Whig,  even  by  one  who  truly  felt,  as  he  after- 
wards stated  in  the  Senate :  "  Upon  the  question  of  slavery, 
I  know  no  Whiggery  and  I  know  no  Democracy."  This 
argument  and  others  undoubtedly  had  their  influence  on 
Douglas ;  but,  in  truth,  he  had  laid  out  his  course  when  he 
made  the  report  of  the  4th  of  January.  He  had  then 
crossed  the  Rubicon ;  he  was  now  preparing  to  burn  his 
bridges  behind  him. 

Unquestionably  Douglas  would  have  preferred  to  stand  on 
the  proposition  as  at  first  introduced.  It  is  the  testimony  of 
two  personal  and  political  friends  that  he  was  reluctant  to 
incorporate  in  his  bill  a  clause  virtually  repealing  the  Mis- 
souri Compromise.1  The  ambiguous  character  of  the  first 
project  was  not  without  design,  and  suited  his  purpose  ex- 
actly. At  the  South  it  could  be  paraded  as  a  measure  in 
her  interest,  while  at  the  North  there  might  be  honest  dif- 
ferences of  opinion  whether  or  not  the  slavery  restriction 
was  set  aside ;  and  in  the  inception  of  this  movement  it  is 
probable  that  Douglas  thought  that,  no  matter  what  legisla- 
tion was  had,  none  but  free  States  would  be  formed  out  of 


1  Cox,  Three  Decades  of  Federal  Legislation,  p.  49 ;  Foote,  Casket  of 
Reminiscences,  p.  93. 


436  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1864 

this  territory.  This  was  certainly  his  opinion  in  1850,  when 
he  maintained  that  "the  Missouri  Compromise  had  no 
practical  bearing  upon  the  question  of  slavery — it  neither 
curtailed  nor  extended  it  an  inch.  Like  the  ordinance  of 
1787,  it  did  the  South  no  harm,  the  North  no  good."  *  And 
in  the  same  speech  he  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  Ne- 
braska territory  would  be  forever  free,  and  out  of  it  would 
be  formed  at  least  six  free  States.  It  was  rumored  at  the 
time,  and  was  always  believed  by  many  of  the  friends  of  Doug- 
las, that' what  finally  decided  him  to  shape  the  bill  in  accord- 
ance with  Dixon's  views  was  because  he  had  reason  to  believe 
that  if  he  did  not  take  that  step  Cass  would  forestall  him,  sup- 
port the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  and  thereby  gain 
an  important  advantage  in  the  race  for  the  Democratic  nomi- 
nation.2 

Douglas  had  written  his  report  and  prepared  his  first  bill 
without  any  consultation  with  the  President,  but  the  rising 
tide  of  Northern  sentiment  against  the  measure,  and  the  cer- 
tainty that  the  murmur  would  become  a  roar,  admonished 
him  that  nothing  could  be  safely  omitted  which  would  aid 
the  passage  of  the  act  through  both  houses  of  Congress. 
He  felt  confident  that  success  in  the  Senate  was  certain,  but 
the  power  and  influence  of  the  administration  might  be 
necessary  to  insure  a  majority  in  the  House.  He  sought, 
therefore,  the  assistance  of  the  President.  Pierce,  through 
his  own  organ,  the  Washington  Union,  which  faithfully  rep- 
resented his  opinions,3  had  approved  the  report  of  the  com- 


1  Speech  on  the  compromise  measures,  March  13th,  1850. 

•  This  was  a  view  presented  to  me  by  ex-Senator  Bradbury,  of  Maine. 
Cass  regarded  the  rumor  of  enough  importance  to  deny  it  in  open  Senate. 
"  I  am  aware,"  he  said,  "  it  was  reported  that  I  intended  to  propose  the 
repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise ;  but  it  was  an  error.  My  intentions 
were  wholly  misunderstood."—  Congressional  Glole,vo\.  xxix.  p.  270.  See 
also  the  St.  Louis  Democrat,  quoted  in  the  New  York  Tribune  of  Jan.  30th ; 
also  Washington  Union,  Jan.  19th,  referred  to  in  Nicolay  and  Hay's  His- 
tory of  Lincoln,  Century  Magazine,  vol.  xi.  p.  699. 

1 "  While  I  was  one  of  the  editors  of  the  National  Democratic  organ 


C».V.]  DOUGLAS  AND  JEFFERSON  DAVIS  437 

mittee  on  territories ; 1  but  he  did  not  regard  with  favor  the 
amendment  of  Dixon,  and  on  January  20th  the  Union  argued 
against  it.3 

On  Sunday  morning,  January  22d,  Douglas,  in  company 
with  other  gentlemen,  members  of  Congress,  called  on  Jef- 
ferson Davis,  and  stated  to  him  the  proposed  change  in  the 
Nebraska  bill.  They  further  desired  that  he  would  procure 
them  on  that  day  an  interview  with  the  President,  who,  as 
they  knew,  was  strictly  opposed  to  receiving  visits  or  dis- 
cussing political  affairs  on  Sunday ;  but  it  was  highly  im- 
portant to  introduce  the  substitute  on  the  following  day, 
and  Douglas  would  not  do  so  without  consulting  the  Presi- 
dent. Davis  went  with  them  to  the  White  House.  He 
stood  on  such  friendly  footing  with  Pierce  that  the  door  was 
always  open  to  him,  and,  leaving  his  companions  in  the  re- 
ception-room, he  proceeded  at  once  to  the  private  apart- 
ments of  the  President  and  unfolded  the  object  of  their 
visit.  Afterwards  the  President  met  the  gentlemen,  listened 


during  Pierce's  administration,  Attorney-General  Gushing,  although  deep- 
ly immersed  in  the  business  of  his  department,  hardly  let  a  day  pass  with- 
out sending  me  an  editorial  on  some  subject." — Forney,  Anecdotes  of 
Public  Men,  vol.  i.  p.  229. 

1  Douglas  "  has  arrived  at  conclusions  which  seem  to  us  unassailable. 
.  .  .  We  commend  Mr.  Douglas's  report  not  only  for  the  ability  with 
which  it  is  prepared,  but  for  the  sound,  national,  Union-loving  sentiments 
with  which  it  abounds." — Washington  Union,  Jan.  5th. 

"  The  Nebraska  bill  is  drawn  upon  the  same  principles  [i.  e.,  those  of 
1850]  and  presents  an  opportunity  for  a  practical  vindication  of  the  pol- 
icy of  the  administration." — Ibid.,  Jan.  6th. 

*  "  To  repeal  the  Missouri  Compromise  might,  and  according  to  our 
view  would,  clear  the  principle  of  congressional  non-intervention  of  all 
embarrassment ;  but  we  doubt  whether  the  good  thus  promised  is  so  im- 
portant that  it  would  be  wise  to  seek  it  through  the  agitation  which 
necessarily  stands  in  our  path.  Upon  a  calm  review  of  the  whole  ground, 
we  yet  see  no  such  reasons  for  disturbing  the  compromise  of  1850  as 
could  induce  us  to  advocate  either  of  the  amendments  proposed  to  Mr. 
Douglas's  bill."  —  Washington  Union,  Jan.  20th.  The  amendments  re- 
ferred to  are  Dixon's  and  Sumner's. 


438  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1864 

to  the  reading  of  the  bill,  gave  attention  to  the  arguments 
•of  Douglas  explanatory  of  the  proposed  alteration,  and  in 
the  end  promised  the  support  of  the  administration.1  We 
may  feel  certain,  however,  that  it  was  the  persuasion  of 
Davis  at  the  private  interview  which  induced  the  President 
to  give  his  approval.  He  could  not  have  forgotten  that,  less 
than  two  months  previously,  when  in  his  message  he  men- 
tioned that  in  regard  to  the  slavery  and  sectional  question 
there  had  been  "  restored  a  sense  of  repose  and  security  to 
the  public  mind  throughout  the  confederacy,"  he  had  added, 
"  That  this  repose  is  to  suffer  no  shock  during  my  official 
term,  if  I  have  power  to  avert  it,  those  who  placed  me  here 
may  be  assured."  On  this  Sunday  he  had  the  power  to  ful- 
fil the  solemn  pledge  he  had  given  the  nation  and  its  repre- 
sentatives ;  but  his  hankering  after  a  renomination  made  him 
easily  susceptible  to  the  influences  which  were  brought  to 
bear  upon  him. 

Douglas  had  reckoned  wisely  when  he  applied  to  Davis 
for  help  in  gaining  the  President.  There  were  two  oppos- 
ing influences  in  the  administration,  one  represented  by  the 
Secretary  of  State  and  the  other  by  the  Secretary  of  War, 
and  Douglas  knew  that  in  this  affair  it  was  Davis  that  he 
should  call  upon.  Pierce  loved  and  trusted  Davis,8  who 
had,  moreover,  the  backing  of  the  Southern  Democracy, 
which  the  President  was  now  anxious  to  conciliate  in  order 
to  effectually  contradict  reports  current  in  the  South  that 
the  administration  was  tinctured  with  Free-soilism.  Yet 
Pierce  was  also  solicitous  for  the  support  of  Marcy  in  this 


1  The  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Confederate  Government,  Jefferson  Davis, 
vol.  i.  p.  28 ;  Life  of  Davis,  Alfriend,  p.  94 ;  Life  of  Davis,  Pollard,  p. 
49;  Memoir  of  Jefferson  Davis,  by  his  wife,  vol.  i.  p.  669.  See  also 
Washington  correspondence  of  the  New  York  Courier  and  Enquirer, 
March  25th;  New  York  Herald,  Jan.  24th. 

9  At  the  end  of  his  term  of  office,  Pierce  said  to  Davis :  "  I  can  scarcely 
bear  the  parting  from  you,  who  have  been  strength  and  solace  to  me  for 
four  anxious  years,  and  never  failed  me." — Memoir  of  Jefferson  Davis,  by 
his  wife,  vol.  i.  p.  530. 


On.V.]  THE  KANSAS-NEBRASKA  BILL  439 

affair,  and  requested  Douglas  and  his  companions  to  call  upon 
him  for  consultation.  This  wish  was,  of  course,  complied 
with,  but  the  Secretary  of  State  was  not  found  at  home.1 

On  Monday,  January  23d,  Douglas  offered  a  substitute 
for  his  preceding  bill.  It  differed  from  the  other  in  two 
particulars.  It  affirmed  that  the  slavery  restriction  of  the 
Missouri  Compromise  "  was  superseded  by  the  principles  of 
the  legislation  of  1850,  commonly  called  the  compromise 
measures,  and  is  hereby  declared  inoperative;"  and  it  di- 
vided the  great  territory  into  two  parts,  calling  the  northern 
portion  Nebraska,  and  the  southern  Kansas.  The  northern 
and  southern  boundaries  of  Kansas  were  the  same  as  those 
of  the  present  State,  but  the  western  limit  was  the  Kocky 
Mountains,  and  the  total  area  one  hundred  and  twenty-six 
thousand  square  miles.8 

We  cannot  clearly  trace  the  ways  leading  up  to  this  di- 
vision of  Nebraska,  which  apparently  formed  no  part  of  the 
original  plan.  Nor  is  the  explanation  of  Senator  Douglas 
sufficient.3  It  is  almost  certain  that  if  there  had  been  no 
question  of  slavery,  this  change  would  not  have  been  made. 
A  steadfast  Northern  follower  of  Douglas  has  acknowledged 
that  the  purpose  which  he  had  in  view  by  this  division  was 
to  make  one  slave  and  one  free  State ; 4  and  there  is  much 
in  the  contemporaneous  evidence  to  lead  one  to  this  conclu- 
sion. In  the  summer  and  fall  of  1853,  a  movement  began 


1  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power,  Wilson,  vol.  ii.  p.  383. 

*  Spring's  Kansas,  p.  17.    The  present  State  of  Kansas  has  81,700  square 
miles. 

1  See  Congressional  Globe,  vol.  xxviii.  p.  221. 

*  Three  Decades  of  Federal  Legislation,  S.  S.  Cox,  p.  49.     Of  the  close 
relation  of  Cox  to  Douglas,  see  his  eulogy  on  the  death  of  Douglas,  House 
of  Representatives,  July,  1861,  when  he  said :  "  It  may  not  be  improper 
to  refer  to  the  fact  that  I  was  among  the  many  young  men  of  the  West 
who  were  bound  to  him  by  a  tie  of  friendship  and  a  spell  of  enthusiasm 
which  death  has  no  power  to  break ;"  and  he  also  speaks  of  the  "  un- 
broken association  of  friendship  with  him  from  the  first  year  of  my  po« 
litical  life." 


440  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  £1854 

in  western  Missouri  with  the  avowed  object  of  making  Ne- 
braska slave  territory.1  In  that  portion  of  the  State  there 
were  fifty  thousand  slaves,  worth  perhaps  twenty-five  mill- 
ions of  dollars,  and  the  interests  of  their  owners  seemed  to 
demand  that  the  contiguous  country  should  be  devoted  to 
slavery.  Senator  Atchison  urged  this  view  warmly,  showing 
that  the  only  obstacle  to  their  wishes  lay  in  the  Missouri 
Compromise.  Coming  to  Washington  on  the  opening  of 
Congress,  he  felt  that  he  had  an  aggressive  sentiment  be- 
hind him  which  demanded  the  repeal  of  the  slavery  restric- 
tion.8 His  eyes,  and  those  of  his  constituents,  were  cast 
longingly  on  the  country  which  is  now  Kansas,  and  in  which 
they  hoped  slavery  might  gain  the  foothold  it  had  in  Mis- 
souri. The  Missouri  border  abounded  in  adventurous  spirits 
who  were  ready  for  any  enterprise;  Atchison  and  his  fellow 
slave-holders  were  confident  that  if  the  restriction  were  re- 
moved, these  men  could  be  used  to  advantage  in  establishing 
a  slave  State.  Kansas  was  all  they  wanted,  and  the  territory, 
if  divided,  would  be  easier  to  manage.  That  all  this  was 
known  to  the  Southern  Democrats  and  Whigs  in  Congress 
and  to  Senator  Douglas  is  indisputable.  The  supporters  of 
the  Nebraska  bill  came  together  so  frequently  in  caucus 
and  conference3  that,  if  all  the  features  of  the  situation 
were  not  discussed,  they  must  certainly  have  been  well  un- 
derstood. Indeed,  the  expectation  that  Kansas  would  be- 
come a  slave  State  was  openly  expressed  on  the  floor  of  the 
House.4  It  follows  plainly  enough,  therefore,  that  the  di- 
vision of  the  territory  was  in  the  interest  of  slavery ;  and 
if  Douglas  had  not  been  brought  to  the  point  of  actually 


1  Spring's  Kansas,  p.  24.    See  a  very  noteworthy  article  in  the  New 
York  Tribune  of  Nov.  12th,  1853. 

*  Spring's  Kansas,  p.  24. 

'  See  speech  of  Senator  Benjamin,  May  8th,  1860. 

*  "  I  will  not  now  detail  my  reasons,  but  I  have  a  strong  faith  that  Kan- 
tas  will  "become  a  slave  Stale." — Zollicoflfer,  Whig  representative  from  Ten- 
May  9th,  quoted  by  Von  Hoist. 


CH.  V.]  THE  KANSAS-NEBRASKA  BILL  441 

conceding  that  Kansas  should  be  a  slave  State,  he  at  least 
knew  that  there  was  a  well-devised  scheme  in  progress  to 
make  it  one. 

Tuesday,  the  24th  of  January r  was  a  notable  day  in  the 
history  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill.  Dixon  stated  in  the 
Senate  that  he  was  entirely  satisfied  with  the  amendment 
Douglas  had  incorporated  in  his  bill ;  and  the  Washington 
Union  had  a  carefully  written  editorial  which  was  the  fruit 
of  the  conference  of  the  preceding  Sunday.  After  endors- 
ing the  substitute  of  the  committee  on  territories,  the 
organ  of  the  President  went  on  to  say :  "  We  cannot  but  re- 
gard the  policy  of  the  administration  as  directly  involved 
in  the  question.  That  policy  looks  to  fidelity  to  the  com- 
promise of  1850  as  an  essential  requisite  in  Democratic  or- 
thodoxy. The  proposition  of  Mr.  Douglas  is  a  practical  ex- 
ecution of  the  principles  of  that  compromise,  and,  therefore, 
cannot  but  be  regarded  by  the  administration  as  a  test  of 
Democratic  orthodoxy.  The  union  of  the  Democracy  on 
this  proposition  will  dissipate  forever  the  charge  of  Free-soil 
sympathies  so  recklessly  and  pertinaciously  urged  against 
the  administration  by  our  Whig  opponents ;  while  it  will 
take  from  disaffection  in  our  ranks  the  last  vestige  of  a  pre- 
text for  its  opposition." 

On  this  same  day  (January  24th)  was  published  the  "  Ap- 
peal of  the  Independent  Democrats  in  Congress  to  the  Peo- 
ple of  the  United  States." '  Chase  wrote  the  paper  from  a 
draft  made  by  Giddings,  and  it  received  some  verbal  correc- 


1  There  was  considerable  confusion  about  the  date  of  this  address. 
As  published  in  the  New  York  Times  and  National  Era  of  the  24th,  it 
was  dated  the  22d,  which  was  Sunday.  Douglas  made  a  great  point  of 
the  date,  charging  that  the  abolition  confederates  had  assembled  in  se- 
cret conclave  on  the  holy  Sabbath.  The  date  was  an  error.  The  New 
York  Tribune,  when  it  copied  the  address  from  the  Times,  changed  the 
date  to  the  23d.  It  appears  in  the  Congressional  Globe  as  of  Jan.  19th, 
but  a  postscript  is  added  which  could  not  possibly  have  been  written 
until  the  23d. 


442  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1854 

tions  from  Sumner  and  Gerrit  Smith.1  These  men  signed  it, 
as  did  also  Edward  Wade  and  Alexander  De  Witt,  repre 
sentatives  from  Ohio  and  Massachusetts.  All  of  the  signers 
were  Free-soilers.  Like  so  many  political  manifestoes,  com- 
posed in  the  midst  of  agitating  events  and  under  the  influ- 
ence of  powerful  emotion,  the  Appeal  of  the  Independent 
Democrats  is  strong  in  expression ;  but  few  partisan  docu- 
ments will  stand  so  well  the  test  of  time.  It  expresses 
earnest  feeling,  but  it  relates  truthful  history.  The  histori- 
cal argument  is  incontrovertible.  The  reasoning  is  earnest, 
but  the  writers  felt  that,  having  history  and  justice  on  their 
side,  they  needed  only  to  make  fair  statements,  and  that  the 
straining  of  any  point  was  unnecessary.  Viewing  it  in  the 
calm  light  of  the  present,  criticism  is  silent.  Had  the  lan- 
guage been  less  strong,  the  writers  would  not  have  shown 
themselves  equal  to  the  occasion.  It  is  a  brave,  truthful, 
earnest  exposition. 

It  should  be  remarked  that  all  of  the  address  except  the 
postscript  was  written  before  Douglas  introduced  his  sub- 
stitute of  January  23d,  and  has  reference  to  the  report  and 
first  bill  of  the  committee  on  territories.  The  Appeal 
states  at  the  outset  that,  should  the  project  receive  the  sanc- 
tion of  Congress,  it  "  will  open  all  the  unorganized  territory 
of  the  Union  to  the  ingress  of  slavery."  Therefore,  "  We 
arraign  this  bill  as  a  gross  violation  of  a  sacred  pledge ;  as  a 
criminal  betrayal  of  precious  rights;  as  part  and  parcel  of 
an  atrocious  plot  to  exclude  from  a  vast  unoccupied  region 
immigrants  from  the  Old  World  and  free  laborers  from  our 
own  States,  and  convert  it  into  a  dreary  region  of  despotism 
inhabited  by  masters  and  slaves."  The  history  of  the  Mis- 
souri Compromise  is  then  related,9  and  the  truthful  state- 
ment is  made :  "  For  more  than  thirty  years — during  more 
than  half  the  period  of  our  national  Constitution — this  com- 


1  Life  of  Chase,  Schuckers,  p.  140 ;  History  of  the  Rebellion,  Giddings, 
p.  300 ;  Life  of  Wade,  Riddle,  p.  225. 
»  See  Chap.  I. 


CH.V.]      THE  APPEAL  OF  THE  INDEPENDENT  DEMOCRATS          443 

I  pact  [i.  e.,  the  Missouri  Compromise]  has  been  universally  re- 
garded and  acted  upon  as  inviolable  American  law."  And 
now  it  is  proposed  to  cancel  this  compact.  "  Language  fails 
to  express  the  sentiments  of  indignation  and  abhorrence" 
which  the  Nebraska  act  inspires.  "It  is  a  bold  scheme 
against  American  liberty  worthy  of  an  accomplished  archi- 
tect of  ruin.  .  .  .  Shall  a  plot  against  humanity  and  democ- 
racy so  monstrous,  and  so  dangerous  to  the  interest  of  lib- 
erty throughout  the  world,  be  permitted  to  succeed?  We 
appeal  to  the  people.  We  warn  you  that  the  dearest  inter- 
ests of  freedom  and  the  Union  are  in  imminent  peril.  .  .  . 
Let  all  protest,  earnestly  and  emphatically,  by  correspond- 
ence, through  the  press,  by  memorials,  by  resolutions  of 
public  meetings  and  legislative  bodies,  and  in  whatever  other 
mode  may  seem  expedient,  against  this  enormous  crime." 

The  postscript,  which  was  written  just  before  the  Appeal 
was  given  to  the  press,  relates  to  the  substitute  of  January 
23d.  The  truth  of  the  emphatic  statements  with  which  it 
closes  has  never  been  successfully  impugned,  and  they  may 
justly  receive  the  seal  of  impartial  history.  "  This  amend- 
ment," the  Appeal  says,  "is  a  manifest  falsification  of  the 
truth  of  history.  .  .  .  Not  a  man  in  Congress,  or  out  of 
Congress,  in  1850  pretended  that  the  compromise  measures 
would  repeal  the  Missouri  prohibition.1  Mr.  Douglas  him- 
self never  advanced  such  a  pretence  until  this  session.  His 
own  Nebraska  bill,  of  last  session,  rejected  it.  It  is  a  sheer 
afterthought.  To  declare  the  prohibition  inoperative  may, 
indeed,  have  effect  in  law  as  a  repeal,  but  it  is  a  most  dis- 
creditable way  of  reaching  the  object.  Will  the  people  per- 
mit their  dearest  interests  to  be  thus  made  the  mere  hazards 
of  a  presidential  game,  and  destroyed  by  false  facts  and 
false  inferences  V  * 

This  appeal  was  published  in  nearly  all  the  newspapers  of 


1  There  may  possibly  be  one  exception  to  this  statement.     It  will  be 
considered  later. 
9  Congressional  Globe,  vol.  xxviii.  p.  281. 


444  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1854 

the  free  States.  The  field  had  been  well  prepared  for  the 
sowing  of  this  seed.  Connected  with  the  journals  of  this 
time  were  many  able  and  earnest  men  full  of  enthusiasm  for 
a  righteous  cause.  Almost  without  exception,  the  conspic- 
uous editors  at  the  North  took  ground  from  the  first  against 
the  Nebraska  act,  and  their  papers  abounded  in  sharp  criti- 
cisms of  the  author  of  the  measure  and  in  entreaties  to  the 
friends  of  freedom  not  to  permit  the  consummation  of  the 
infamy.  Some  regarded  the  measure  with  anger,  others  with 
grief,  and  all  with  apprehension.  The  public  mind  was  in  a 
state  that  could  not  fail  to  be  profoundly  affected  by  an  au- 
thoritative and  impressive  protest  from  Washington.  It  is 
true  that  the  Free-soil  congressmen  had  not  a  large  political 
following ;  but  their  arguments  were  so  cogent  that  they 
convinced  and  roused  many  men  who  had  been  accustomed 
to  regard  the  authors  of  the  Appeal  with  mistrust.  If  the 
politicians  at  Washington,  wrote  one  earnest  journalist,  have 
any  doubt  about  the  public  opinion,  let  them  put  their  ears 
to  the  ground  and  they  "  will  hear  the  roar  of  the  tide  com- 
ing in." ' 

When  Douglas  came  into  the  Senate  on  the  morning  of 
January  30th,  he  was  a  prey  to  angry  excitement,  and 
shortly  after  his  entrance  he  took  the  floor  to  open  the  de- 
bate on  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill.  The  reason  of  his  rage 
was  soon  apparent.  It  was  caused  by  the  Appeal  of  the  In- 
dependent Democrats  and  by  the  indications  of  public  sen- 
timent which  had  already  reached  Washington,  and  which 
Douglas  was  inclined  to  attribute  wholly  to  the  prompting 
of  this  address.  In  deference  to  the  wishes  of  Chase  and 
Sumner,  he  had  postponed  the  consideration  of  the  bill  for 
six  days,  and  now  he  charged  Chase  with  having  come  to 
him  "  with  a  smiling  face  and  the  appearance  of  friendship," 
begging  for  delay,  merely  in  order  to  get  a  wide  circulation 
for  the  Appeal  and  forestall  public  opinion  before  an  exposi- 
tion of  the  measure  was  made  by  its  author.  The  address, 


1  New  York  Evening  Pos^  Feb,  3d,  1854. 


CH.V.]  DOUGLAS'S  SPEECH  445 

he  said,  grossly  misrepresented  the  bill,  arraigned  the  mo- 
tives and  calumniated  the  characters  of  the  members  of  the 
committee,  and  the  postscript  applied  coarse  epithets  to 
himself  by  name.  Chase  endeavored  to  interrupt  the 
speaker,  and  an  excited  colloquy  followed ;  Douglas  lost  his 
temper  completely,  and  emphatic  language  was  used  by  both 
senators,  so  that  they  were  at  different  times  called  to  order 
by  the  president.  This,  one  may  gather  from  the  official 
report  in  the  Congressional  Globe ;  but  it  was  stated  that 
Douglas  carefully  corrected  his  remarks  before  publication, 
and  struck  out  many  opprobrious  words  he  had  used.1 
Several  Washington  correspondents  agree  in  their  descrip- 
tion of  the  manner  and  language  of  Douglas.  One  speaks 
of  his  "  senatorial  billingsgate,"  and  of  the  "  vulgarity  and 
vehemence  of  the  abuse  which  he  poured  out  upon  Senator 
Chase ;" a  another  described  the  scene  as  one  of  "  intemper- 
ate violence,"  and  maintained  that  the  course  of  Douglas 
was  "  indecorous  and  a  most  reprehensible  violation  of  the 
dignity  of  the  body,"  and  that  his  style  of  attack  was  "  more 
becoming  a  pot-house  than  the  Senate ;" 8  and  another  spoke 
of  his  speech  as  "violent  and  abusive."4  In  spite  of  the 
fact  that  the  display  of  temper  at  the  outset  lost  Douglas  in 
a  certain  degree  the  respect  of  his  audience,  the  speech  was 
conceded  by  his  opponents  to  be  able  and  ingenious,  indeed 
the  very  best  that  could  be  made  in  a  very  bad  cause.6  An 
earnest  abolitionist  paid  a  tribute  to  the  remarkable  force 
and  adroitness  of  the  argument.' 


1  See  New  York  Times,  Feb.  2d ;  also  letter  in  the  New  York  Indepen- 
dent of  March  16th. 

•  See  New  York  Times,  Feb.  1st. 

3  Washington  correspondence  New  York  Courier  and  Enquirer,  Jan. 
30th. 

4  New  York  Tribune.    It  may  be  remarked  that  all  these  journals  were 
hostile  to  Douglas.     The  anger  of  Douglas  was  raised  when  he  referred 
to  the  affair  five  years  later.    See  Constitutional  and  Party  Questions,  X 
M.  Cutts,  p.  94.  '  New  York  Times. 

•  T.  W.  Higginson,  letter  in  the  Liberator,  Feb.  24th. 


446  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1854 

Douglas  stated  that  by  the  Missouri  Compromise  of  1820 
a  geographical  line  had  been  established,  north  of  which 
slavery  was  prohibited,  and  south  of  which  it  was  permitted. 
When  New  Mexico  and  California  were  acquired,  a  logical 
adherence  to  that  principle  required  the  extension  of  this 
line  to  the  Pacific  Ocean.  On  his  motion  in  1848,  the  Senate 
had  adopted  such  a  provision ;  but  it  failed  in  the  House,  be- 
ing defeated  "  by  Northern  votes  with  Free-soil  proclivities."  * 
This  refusal  to  extend  the  Missouri  Compromise  line  to  the 
Pacific  Ocean  gave  rise  to  a  furious  slavery  agitation,  which 
continued  until  it  was  quieted  by  the  compromise  measures 
of  1850.  In  that  series  of  acts,  the  principle  established 
was :  "  Congressional  non-intervention  as  to  slavery  in  the 
territories ;  that  the  people  of  the  territories  .  .  .  were  to 
be  allowed  to  do  as  they  pleased  upon  the  subject  of  slavery, 
subject  only  to  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution."  Al- 
though the  only  territorial  bills  which  were  a  part  of  the 
plan  of  1850  were  those  organizing  Utah  and  New  Mexico, 
yet  the  Missouri  Compromise  line,  in  all  the  unorganized 
territory  not  covered  by  those  bills,  was  superseded  by  the 
principles  of  that  compromise.  "We  all  know,"  said  the 
senator,  "that  the  object  of  the  compromise  measures  of 
1850  was  to  establish  certain  great  principles,  which  would 
avoid  the  slavery  agitation  in  all  time  to  come.  Was  it  our 
object  simply  to  provide  for  a  temporary  evil  ?  Was  it  our 
object  just  to  heal  over  an  old  sore  and  leave  it  to  break  out 
again  ?  Was  it  our  object  to  adopt  a  mere  miserable  expe- 
dient to  apply  to  that  territory,  and  that  alone,  and  leave 
ourselves  entirely  at  sea,  without  compass,  when  new  terri- 
tory was  acquired  or  new  territorial  organizations  were  to 
be  made  ?  Was  that  the  object  for  which  the  eminent  and 
venerable  senator  from  Kentucky  [Clay]  came  here  and 
sacrificed  even  his  last  energies  upon  the  altar  of  his 
country  ?  Was  that  the  object  for  which  Webster,  Clay, 
and  Cass,  and  all  the  patriots  of  that  day,  struggled  so  long 

*  See  p.  96. 


CH.V.]  DOUGLAS'S  SPEECH  447 

and  so  strenuously?  "Was  it  merely  the  application  of  a 
temporary  expedient  in  agreeing  to  stand  by  past  and  dead 
legislation  that  the  Baltimore  platform  pledged  us  to  sustain 
the  compromise  of  1850  ?  Was  it  the  understanding  of  the 
Whig  party  when  they  adopted  the  compromise  measures 
of  1850  as  an  article  of  political  faith,  that  they  were  only 
agreeing  to  that  which  was  past  and  had  no  reference  to  the 
future  ?"  By  no  means.  In  the  legislation  of  1850  a  prin- 
ciple was  adopted — the  principle  of  congressional  non-in- 
terference with  slavery,  and  when  the  two  party  conventions 
resolved  to  acquiesce  in  the  compromise  measures,  they 
were  giving  pledges  that  in  their  future  action  they  would 
carry  out  that  principle.  Now  it  is  necessary  to  organize 
the  territory  of  Nebraska.  The  Missouri  Compromise  re- 
striction is  inconsistent  with  this  later  principle  and  should 
give  place  to  it.  "  The  legal  effect  of  this  bill,"  continued 
Douglas,  "  is  neither  to  legislate  slavery  into  these  terri- 
tories nor  out  of  them,  but  to  leave  the  people  do  as  they 
please.  ...  If  they  wish  slavery,  they  have  a  right  to  it.  If 
they  do  not  want  it,  they  will  not  have  it,  and  you  should  not 
force  it  upon  them." 

Did  Douglas  describe  the  workings  of  his  own  mind  be- 
tween January  4th  and  23d,  when  he  said,  in  graphic  words : 
"  I  know  there  are  some  men,  Whigs  and  Democrats,  who 
.  .  .  would  be  willing  to  vote  for  this  principle,  provided 
they  could  do  so  in  such  equivocal  terms  that  they  could 
deny  that  it  means  what  it  was  intended  to  mean,  in  certain 
localities."  But  he  went  on  to  say :  "  I  do  not  wish  to  deal 
in  any  equivocal  language.  If  the  principle  is  right,  let  it 
be  avowed  and  maintained.  If  it  is  wrong,  let  it  be  repu- 
diated. Let  all  this  quibbling  about  the  Missouri  Compro- 
mise ...  be  cast  behind  you ;  for  the  simple  question  is, 
will  you  allow  the  people  to  legislate  for  themselves  upon 
the  question  of  slavery  ?  Why  should  you  not  ?"  For  the 
benefit,  probably,  of  what  he  called  "  tender-footed  Demo- 
crats," he  maintained  that  it  was  worse  than  folly  to  think 
of  Nebraska  being  a  slave-holding  country.  Nor  did  the 


448  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1854 

manifestations  of  public  sentiment  averse  to  the  measure 
frighten  Douglas.  "  This  tornado,"  he  said,  "  has  been 
raised  by  abolitionists,  and  abolitionists  alone." 

The  senator  made  an  argument  based  on  the  fact  that  the 
boundary  lines  of  New  Mexico  and  Utah,  as  constituted,  an- 
nulled the  Missouri  Compromise  in  a  part  of  the  territory 
to  which  it  applied.  While  this  at  the  time  was  considered 
ingenious  reasoning,  it  was  effectually  refuted  by  Chase  and 
Everett,  and  Douglas  did  not  allude  to  it  in  his  speech  which 
closed  the  debate ;  nor  was  this  the  argument  he  relied  on 
in  the  many  defences  he  made  of  his  present  course  in  after- 
years. 

When  Douglas  sat  down,  Chase  obtained  the  floor  and 
made  a  defence  of  the  Appeal  of  the  Independent  Demo- 
crats. They  meant  exactly  what  they  said ;  it  was  not  an 
occasion  for  soft  words ;  they  considered  the  Missouri  Com- 
promise a  sacred  pledge,  and  its  proposed  abrogation  "  a 
criminal  betrayal  of  precious  rights."  "What  rights  are 
precious,"  demanded  the  senator,  "  if  those  secured  to  free 
labor  and  free  laborers  in  that  vast  territory  are  not  2"  The 
attempt  of  Douglas  to  shield  himself  under  the  aegis  of  Clay 
and  Webster  was  not  overlooked ;  the  Illinois  senator  knew  it 
to  be  a  strong  point,  and  in  after-years  elaborated  it  into  a 
statement  that  he  had  given  the  "  immortal  Clay,"  lying  on 
his  death-bed,  a  pledge  that  his  energies  should  be  devoted 
to  the  vindication  of  the  principle  of  leaving  each  State  and 
territory  free  to  decide  its  institutions  for  itself,  and  he  had 
also  given  the  same  pledge  to  the  "  godlike  Webster." 1  On 
the  day  when  this  justification  was  first  broached,  Chase 
must  have  felt  that  if  he  held  his  peace,  the  stones  would 
cry  out  against  it,  and  he  emphatically  asserted :  "  When  the 
senator  vouches  the  authority  of  Clay  and  Webster  to  sus- 
tain him,  he  vouches  authorities  which  would  rebuke  him 
could  those  statesmen  speak  from  their  graves." 

On  the  3d  of  February,  Chase  made  his  mark  in  an  elab« 


Speech  at  Bloomington,  111.,  1858,  Life  of  Douglas,  Flint,  p.  125. 


CHASE'S  SPEECH  449 

orate  speech  against  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  and  on  that 
day  he  took  a  place  in  the  foremost  ranks  of  the  statesmen 
who  devoted  themselves  to  anti-slavery  principles. 

He  was,  with  perhaps  the  exception  of  Sumner,  the  hand- 
somest man  in  the  Senate,  and  as  he  rose  to  make  his  plea 
for  the  maintenance  of  plighted  faith,  all  felt  the  force  of 
his  commanding  presence.  More  than  six  feet  high,  he  had 
a  frame  and  figure  proportioned  to  his  height;  with  his 
large  head,  massive  brow,  and  smoothly  shaven  face,  he 
looked  like  a  Koman  senator ;  and  the  similitude  was  height- 
ened by  his  coming  to  plead  against  the  introduction  of 
Punic  faith  into  the  Congress  of  the  United  States.  He  ap- 
preciated the  gravity  of  the  situation,  and  attributed  the 
crowded  galleries,  the  thronged  lobbies  and  the  full  at- 
tendance of  the  Senate  to  the  transcendent  interest  of  the 
theme.  Chase  was  not  a  fluent  and  easy  speaker ;  he  had 
less  of  the  spirit  of  the  orator  than  Douglas ;  he  could  not 
sway  an  audience  of  the  Senate  as  could  the  Little  Giant.1 
Nevertheless,  the  dignity  of  his  manner  and  the  weight  of 
his  words  obtained  him  a  careful  hearing,  and  he  was  listened 
to  with  attention  by  senators  and  visitors.9 

When  Congress  met,  he  said,  "no  agitation  seemed  to 
disturb  the  political  elements."  The  two  great  political 
parties  "had  announced  that  slavery  agitation  was  at  an 
end;"  the  President  "had  declared  his  fixed  purpose  to 
maintain  the  quiet  of  the  country.  .  .  .  But  suddenly  all  is 
changed.  .  .  .  And  now  we  find  ourselves  in  an  agitation 
the  end  and  issue  of  which  no  man  can  foresee.  Who  is  re- 
sponsible for  this  renewal  of  strife  and  controversy  ?  ...  It 
is  slavery.  .  .  .  And  what  does  slavery  ask  for  now  ?  It  de- 
mands that  a  time-honored  and  sacred  compact  shall  be  re- 
scinded— a  compact  which  has  endured  through  a  whole 


1  Warden's  Life  of  Chase,  p.  340. 

*  Washington  correspondence  New  York  Times,  published  Feb.  6th, 
I  am  indebted  to  Mr.  R.  C.  Parsons,  of  Cleveland,  who  knew  Chase  inti 
mately,  for  a  vivid  description  of  him  as  he  was  in  his  senatorial  career. 
L— 29 


450  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1864 

generation ;  a  compact  which  has  been  universally  regarded 
as  inviolable,  North  and  South;  a  compact  the  constitu- 
tionality of  which  few  have  doubted,  and  by  which  all  have 
consented  to  abide."  The  ground  on  which  it  is  proposed 
to  violate  this  compact  is  supposed  to  be  found  in  the  doc- 
trine that  the  restriction  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  is 
superseded  by  the  principles  of  the  compromise  measures  of 
1850.  This  is  a  "statement  untrue  in  fact  and  without 
foundation  in  history."  It  is,  continued  the  senator,  "  a 
novel  idea.  At  the  time  when  these  measures  were  before 
Congress  in  1850,  when  the  questions  involved  in  them  were 
discussed  from  day  to  day,  from  week  to  week,  and  from 
month  to  month,  in  this  Senate  Chamber,  who  ever  heard 
that  the  Missouri  prohibition  was  to  be  superseded  ?  What 
man,  at  what  time,  in  what  speech,  ever  suggested  the  idea 
that  the  acts  of  that  year  were  to  affect  the  Missouri  Com- 
promise ?  .  .  .  Did  Henry  Clay,  in  the  report  made  by  him 
as  chairman  of  the  committee  of  thirteen,  or  in  any  speech 
in  support  of  the  compromise  acts,  or  in  any  conversation,  in 
the  committee  or  out  of  the  committee,  ever  even  hint  at 
this  doctrine  of  supersedure?  Did  any  supporter  or  any 
opponent  of  the  compromise  acts  ever  vindicate  or  condemn 
them  upon  the  ground  that  the  Missouri  prohibition  would 
be  affected  by  them  ?  Well,  sir,  the  compromise  acts  were 
passed.  They  were  denounced  North  and  they  were  de- 
nounced South.  Did  any  defender  of  them  at  the  South 
ever  justify  his  support  of  them  upon  the  ground  that  the 
South  had  obtained  through  them  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri 
prohibition?  Did  any  objector  to  them  at  the  North  ever 
even  suggest,  as  a  ground  of  condemnation,  that  that  prohi- 
bition was  swept  away  by  them  ?  No,  sir !  No  man,  North 
or  South,  during  the  whole  of  the  discussion  of  those  acts 
here,  or  in  that  other  discussion  which  followed  their  enact- 
ment throughout  the  country,  ever  intimated  any  such  opin- 
ion." After  effectually  refuting  the  argument  of  Douglas 
drawn  from  the  constitution  of  the  boundaries  of  New 
Mexico  and  Utah,  and  giving  an  account  of  the  anti-slavery 


CH.  V.]  CHASE'S  SPEECH  451 

opinions  of  the  fathers  of  the  government,  Chase  related 
briefly  and  correctly  the  history  of  the  Missouri  Compromise, 
and  in  a  few  words  he  stated  the  obligations  which  that  act 
imposed  on  the  South.  He  said:  "A  large  majority  of 
Southern  senators  voted  for  it ;  a  majority  of  Southern  rep- 
resentatives voted  for  it.  It  was  approved  by  all  the 
Southern  members  of  the  cabinet,  and  received  the  sanction 
of  a  Southern  President.  The  compact  was  embodied  in  a 
single  bill  containing  reciprocal  provisions.  The  admission 
of  Missouri  with  slavery,  and  the'  understanding  that  slavery 
should  not  be  prohibited  by  Congress  south  of  36°  30',  were 
the  considerations  of  the  perpetual  prohibition  north  of  that 
line.  And  that  prohibition  was  the  consideration  of  the  ad- 
mission and  the  understanding.  The  slave  States  received 
a  large  share  of  the  consideration  coming  to  them,  paid  in 
hand.  Missouri  was  admitted  without  restriction  by  the  act 
itself.  Every  other  part  of  the  compact,  on  the  part  of  the 
free  States,  has  been  fulfilled  to  the  letter.  Eo  part  of  the 
compact  on  the  part  of  the  slave  States  has  been  fulfilled  -at 
all,  except  in  the  admission  of  Iowa  and  the  organization  of 
Minnesota ;  and  now  the  slave  States  propose  to  break  up  the 
compact  without  the  consent  and  against  the  will  of  the  free 
States."  Chase  gave  a  brief  but  able  review  of  the  sla- 
very question  in  this  country.  He  rose  to  the  height  of 
prophecy  as  he  spoke  of  his  faith  in  progress  and  his  hope 
of  the  future  of  the  republic,  and  he  closed  with  an  earnest 
appeal  to  the  senators  to  reject  this  bill,  as  it  was  "  a  viola- 
tion of  the  plighted  faith  and  solemn  compact  which  our 
fathers  made,  and  which  we,  their  sons,  are  bound  by  every 
sacred  tie  of  obligation  sacredly  to  maintain." 

Chase's  speech  was  indeed  a  great  one.  As  an  earnest  pro- 
test against  a  measure  which  violated  the  sentiment  of  justice, 
and  whose  iniquity  the  speaker  felt  in  every  fibre  of  his  be- 
ing, it  must  ever  take  high  rank.  In  it  were  united  the  un- 
derstanding of  the  lawyer,  the  elevation  of  the  statesman, 
and  the  gravity  of  the  moralist ;  the  warmth  of  the  advo- 
cate is  tempered  by  the  fairness  of  the  judge.  His  state- 


452  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1854 

ments  are  lucid,  his  arguments  unanswerable.  He  seemed  to 
feel  a  profound  regret  that  the  question  of  slavery  should 
be  agitated  again;  but  his  strong  moral  nature  had  burning 
convictions,  and  he  was  bound  to  express  them.  The  mat- 
ter is  made  plain,  history  is  truthfully  related,  his  reasoning 
is  careful,  and  the  conclusions  irresistible. 

Wade,  Seward,  and  Sumner  made  powerful  speeches 
against  the  bill.  Their  point  of  view  was  the  same  as  that 
of  Chase.  All  thought  slavery  an  evil  whose  power  must 
be  circumscribed,  and  all  looked  to  a  time  when  it  should  be 
eradicated.  The  line  of  argument  which  they  pursued  was 
substantially  the  same  as  that  of  Chase,  but  each  had  a  pe- 
culiar following  in  the  country,  to  whom  their  arguments 
were  addressed  as  well  as  to  the  Senate-.  The  rasping  lan- 
guage of  Wade  offended  some  Eastern  critics,1  but  the  farm- 
ers of  Northern  Ohio,  whom  he  represented,  loved  plain 
speaking,  and  were  glad  that  their  senator  did  not  mince 
his  words  when  he  protested  against  a  rank  injustice.  He 
had  a  ready  wit,  and,  while  his  set  speech  was  soon  forgotten, 
a  retort  that  he  made  during  the  debate  is  still  remembered. 
In  it  there  lurked  a  strong  argument,  and  it  states  incisively 
the  difference  between  the  apologists  and  the  assailants  of 
slavery. 

Badger,  of  North  Carolina,  had  rehearsed  the  ancient  argu- 
ment for  the  dilution  of  slavery,  and  in  a  feeling  manner  had 
asked :  "  Why,  if  some  Southern  gentleman  wishes  to  take 
the  nurse  who  takes  charge  of  his  little  baby,  or  the  old 
woman  who  nursed  him  in  childhood,  and  whom  he  called 
*  Mammy '  until  he  returned  from  college,  and  perhaps  after- 
wards too,  and  whom  he  wishes  to  take  with  him  in  his  old 
age  when  he  is  moving  into  one  of  these  new  territories  for 
the  betterment  of  the  fortunes  of  the  whole  family — why,  in 
the  name  of  God,  should  anybody  prevent  it  ?"  Wade  was 
glad  to  answer  this  question.  "  The  senator,"  he  said,  "  en- 
tirely mistakes  our  position.  We  have  not  the  least  object 


See  Washington  correspondence  New  York  Tima,  Feb.  6th. 


CH.V.]  SEWARD'S  SPEECH  453 

tion,  and  would  oppose  no  obstacle  to  the  senator's  migrat- 
ing to  Kansas  and  taking  his  old  ' Mammy'  along  with 
him.  "We  only  insist  that  he  shall  not  be  empowered  to  sell 
her  after  taking  her  there." ' 

Seward  was  not  an  effective  speaker,  but  his  high  political 
position  gave  him  an  attentive  hearing  at  Washington,  and 
his  words  were  not  only  listened  to  by  his  followers  in  New 
York,  but  they  had  a  marked  influence  on  all  the  anti-slavery 
Whigs  in  the  country.  His  speech  was  translated  into  Ger- 
man and  extensively  circulated  among  the  Germans  of  West- 
ern Texas  under  the  frank  of  Senator  Houston.2  It  probably 
affected  the  minds  of  more  men  than  any  speech  delivered 
on  that  side  of  this  question  in  Congress ;  and,  though  lack- 
ing the  force,  feeling,  and  decision  of  that  of  Chase,  it  was  a 
clever  legal  argument.  The  speech  of  Chase  was  the  argu- 
ment of  an  indignant  moralist,  the  pathetic  appeal  of  a  pa- 
triotic statesman;  that  of  Seward  was  the  reasoning  of  a 
politician  who  could  not  conceal  his  exultation  that  the 
Democrats  had  forsaken  their  high  vantage-ground  and 
played  into  the  hands  of  their  opponents.8  But  he  could 
not  feel  entirely  certain  whether  a  new  anti-slavery  party 
would  be  formed,  or  whether  there  was  still  a  reason  for  the 
existence  of  the  Whig  party,  and  thought  it  not  well  to  use 
words  so  harsh  that  a  deadly  breach  would  be  made  be- 
tween the  Northern  and  Southern  Whigs.  He  had  declined, 


1  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power,  Wilson,  vol.  ii.  p.  388.    Compare 
Life  of  Wade,  Riddle,  p.  232. 

2  See  letter  of  Yeoman  from  San  Antonio,  Texas,  of  April  18th,  1854, 
New  York  Times,  May  13th.     Yeoman  was  the  name  under  which  Fred- 
erick Law  Olmsted  wrote. 

1  Montgomery  Blair  wrote  to  Gideon  Welles,  May  17th,  1873 :  "I  shall 
never  forget  how  shocked  I  was  at  his  [Seward]  telling  me  that  he  was 
the  man  who  put  Archy  Dixon,  the  Whig  senator  from  Kentucky  in  1854, 
up  to  moving  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  as  an  amendment  to 
Douglas's  first  Kansas  bill,  and  had  himself  forced  the  repeal  by  that 
movement,  and  had  thus  brought  to  life  the  Republican  party."— Lincoln 
and  Seward,  Welles,  p.  68. 


454  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1854 

therefore,  to  sign  the  Appeal  of  the  Independent  Demo- 
crats.1 

Yet  Seward  made  some  pregnant  assertions  that  may  not 
be  omitted  in  an  account  of  this  debate.  If,  said  he,  it  had 
been  known  that  the  Missouri  Compromise  was  to  be  abro- 
gated, directly  or  indirectly,  by  the  compromise  of  1850,  not 
a  representative  from  a  non-slaveholding  State  would  have 
at  that  day  voted  for  it,  while  every  senator  from  the  slave- 
holding  States  would  have  given  it  his  support.  Nor,  he  as- 
serted, does  it  weaken  my  opposition  to  this  measure  "  to  be 
told  that  only  a  few  slaves  will  enter  into  this  vast  region. 
One  slave-holder  in  a  new  territory,  with  access  to  the  ex- 
ecutive ear  at  Washington,  exercises  more  political  influence 
than  five  hundred  freemen."8 

Sumner  spoke  to  the  cultivated  people  of  Massachusetts,  to 
the  professors  and  students  of  colleges,  and  to  clergymen  of 
advanced  political  views.  The  moral  side  of  the  question 
appealed  to  him  forcibly,  and  he  approached  it  inspired  by 
the  same  sentiment  that  had  moved  Chase.  His  illustrations 
delighted  scholars,  and  his  quotations  pleased  lovers  of  litera- 
ture ;  but  the  speech  lacked  the  cogency  that  distinguished 
the  effort  of  the  Ohio  senator.  No  doubt  can  remain  in  the 
minds  of  impartial  men  that  the  speech  of  Chase  was  the 
greatest  which  was  made  in  either  House  in  opposition  to 
the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill.  It  was  so  regarded  by  Douglas. 
Five  years  afterwards,  in  speaking  of  the  senatorial  debates 
on  this  subject,  he  said :  "  Seward's  and  Sumner's  speeches 
were  mere  essays  against  slavery.  Chase  was  the  leader." ' 

In  eloquent  periods  Sumner  depicted  the  nature  of  the 
question  which  now  agitated  the  country.  He  showed  that 


'  Life  of  Chase,  Schuckers,  p.  160.  Many  Western  papers  published 
the  Appeal  with  Seward's  name  signed  to  it.  The  Tribune  said,  when 
the  Appeal  was  made,  "  Seward  was  at  home  in  Auburn  in  consequence 
of  serious  illness  in  his  family,  and  accordingly  neither  signed  it,  nor  had 
-any  knowledge  of  it  whatever."— New  York  Weekly  Tribune,  Feb.  llth. 

8  Seward's  Works,  vol.  iv.  p.  442. 

'  Constitutional  and  Party  Questions,  J.  M.  Cutts,  p.  123. 


CH.  V.]  SUMNER'S  SPEECH  455 

the  issue  was  made  up.  Slavery,  he  said,  "  is  the  only  sub- 
ject within  the  field  of  national  politics  which  excites  any 
real  interest.  The  old  matters  which  have  divided  the 
minds  of  men  .  .  .  have  disappeared,  leaving  the  ground  to 
be  occupied  by  a  question  grander  far.  The  bank,  sub- 
treasury,  the  distribution  of  the  public  lands,  are  each  and 
all  obsolete  issues.  And  now,  instead  of  these  superseded 
questions,  which  were  filled  for  the  most  part  with  the  odor 
of  the  dollar,  the  country  is  directly  summoned  to  consider 
face  to  face  a  cause  which  is  connected  with  all  that  is  di- 
vine in  religion,  with  all  that  is  pure  and  noble  in  morals, 
with  all  that  is  truly  practical  and  constitutional  in  politics. 
Unlike  the  other  questions,  it  is  not  temporary  or  local  in  its 
character.  It  belongs  to  all  times  and  to  all  countries. 
Though  long  kept  in  check,  it  now,  by  your  introduction, 
confronts  the  people,  demanding  to  be  heard.  To  every 
man  in  the  land,  it  says  with  clear,  penetrating  voice,  '  Are 
you  for  freedom  or  are  you  for  slavery  ?'  And  every  man 
in  the  land  must  answer  this  question  when  he  votes." ' 

Edward  Everett  also  made  a  speech  against  the  bill  in  the 
Senate.  His  utterances  were  important,  not  only  for  the 
weight  of  his  argument,  but  because  he  spoke  for  the  con- 
servative Whigs  of  the  North,  those  who  had  supported  the 
compromise  of  1850  and  had  been  the  followers  of  Webster 
or  Fillmore.  Chase  and  Seward  in  the  Senate,  and  Sumner 
and  Wade  out  of  it,  had  opposed  that  adjustment.  The 
character  of  the  opposition  had  led  Douglas  to  assert  that 
every  one  in  either  House  of  Congress  who  had  supported 
the  compromise  of  1850  was  now  in  favor  of  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill ;  and  this  speech  of  Everett  gave  that  state- 
ment the  first  effective  denial.8  As  had  been  the  case  when 
the  other  senators  who  have  been  mentioned  spoke,  so  now 
crowds  filled  the  Senate  Chamber ;  the  House  was  deserted. 
The  senator  was  listened  to  with  profound  attention,  in 


1  Wade  spoke  Feb.  6th,  Seward  Feb.  17th,  and  Sumner  Feb.  21st. 
5  Everett's  speech  was  made  Feb.  8th. 


466  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1864 

which  curiosity  in  regard  to  his  position  was  mingled  with 
interest,  for  it  had  been  reported  that  he  would  favor  the 
bill.1  But  all  doubts  regarding  Everett's  position  were  soon 
dispelled  as  he  gradually  unfolded  his  argument,  which, 
though  expressed  in  too  courtly  phrase  to  suit  the  radical 
spirits,  was  very  forcible.  Being  of  a  deprecatory  nature,  it 
would  hardly  have  fitted'  the  leader  of  the  opposition.8  Yet 
it  appealed  to  men  whom  the  more  radical  utterances  of 
Chase,  Wade,  and  Sumner  could  not  reach,  and  it  was  of 
great  importance  as  reflecting,  and  at  the  same  time  mould- 
ing, a  certain  public  sentiment.8 

Everett  showed  conclusively,  by  an  argument  drawn  from 
the  letter  of  the  acts  and  from  the  very  nature  of  the  legis- 
lation itself,  that  the  principle  of  non-intervention  on  the 
part  of  Congress  in  the  question  of  slavery  was  not  enacted 
in  the  territorial  bills  of  1850.  Furthermore  he  asked: 
"  How  can  you  find  in  a  simple  measure  applying  in  terms 
to  these  individual  territories,  and  to  them  alone,  a  rule 
which  is  to  govern  all  other  territories  with  a  retrospective 
and  with  a  prospective  action  ?  Is  it  not  a  mere  begging  of 


1  Everett  was  a  true  conservative.  "  You  are  quite  right,"  he  wrote 
Greeley  in  1862, "  in  calling  me  a  l  conservative,'  but  I  am  so,  not  from  any 
bigoted  attachment  to  the  past  or  to  the  established,  as  such.  We  should 
all  strive  to  preserve  what  is  good  as  well  as  contest  what  is  evil.  .  .  . 
Few  men  succeed  in  living  up  to  their  ideal  of  character,  but  I  have  tried 
to  obey  the  apostolic  rule  in  both  parts — *  to  prove  all  things :  hold  fast 
that  which  is  good.' "  This  letter  was  called  out  by  a  complimentary 
biographical  notice  that  Greeley  had  written  for  the  New  York  Ledger,  and 
a  copy  of  it  was  kindly  furnished  me  by  Mr.  Gordon  L.  Ford,  of  Brooklyn, 
who  owns  the  original.  I  take  this  occasion  to  say  that  I  have  been  under 
many  obligations  to  Mr.  Ford,  and  to  his  son,  Mr.  Paul  L.  Ford. 

*  See  Washington  correspondence  New  York  Times,  Feb.  8th ;  see  also 
New  York  Evening  Post,  especially  letter  from  Boston  criticising  this 
speech,  published  March  llth. 

3  The  New  York  Courier  and  Enquirer  called  this  speech  of  Everett 
the  most  brilliant  and  effective  effort  of  the  session.  Editorial  of  Feb. 
9th.  The  Washington  correspondent  of  the  New  York  Tribune  spoke  of 
his  "  eloquent,  impressive,  and  truthful  words." 


OB.  V.]  EVERETT'S  SPEECH  457 

the  question  to  say  that  those  compromise  measures  adopted 
in  this  specific  case  amount  to  such  a  general  rule  ?" 

He  then  went  on  to  consider  the  spirit  of  the  compromise 
measures  of  1850,  and  what  was  the  understanding  of  their 
scope  by  their  chief  supporters.  While,  said  he,  "  I  was  not 
a  member  of  Congress  and  had  not  heard  the  debates  .  .  . 
I  inquired  of  those  who  had  heard  them,  I  read  the  reports, 
and  I  had  an  opportunity  of  personal  intercourse  with  some 
who  had  taken  a  prominent  part  in  all  of  those  measures. 
I  never  formed  the  idea — I  never  received  the  intimation 
until  I  got  it  from  this  report  of  the  committee — that  those 
measures  were  intended  to  have  any  effect  beyond  the  terri- 
tories of  Utah  and  New  Mexico,  for  which  they  were  en- 
acted. I  cannot  but  think  that  if  it  was  intended  that  they 
should  have  any  larger  application,  if  it  was  intended  that 
they  should  furnish  the  rule  which  is  now  supposed,  it  would 
have  been  a  fact  as  notorious  as  the  light  of  day."  The  well- 
known  personal  and  political  friendship  existing  between 
"Webster  and  Everett '  gave  a  peculiar  force  to  these  expres- 
sions, which  was  heightened  when  the  orator  proceeded  to 
relate  his  familiar  intercourse  with  the  expounder  of  the 
Constitution  in  1851,  brought  about  by  the  fact  that  he  had 
by  request  undertaken  to  edit  Webster's  works  and  write 
the  biographical  memoir  prefaced  to  them.  He  had  occa- 
sion to  discuss  the  Yth- of -March  speech  with  its  author; 
and,  while  the  question  of  1854  was  not  mooted,  for  little 
had  they  dreamed  that  any  such  construction  would  ever  be 
put  upon  the  legislation  of  1850,  Everett  spoke  with  author- 
ity when  he  expounded  the  meaning  of  Webster.  He  had 
not  the  slightest  doubt  that  the  great  Massachusetts  senator 
considered  the  Missouri  restriction  a  compact  which  the  gov- 
ernment could  not  in  gogd  faith  repeal. 

Everett  touched  upon  the  absurdity  of  the  principle  of 
Congressional  non-intervention  on  the  subject  of  slavery  in 
the  territories ;  and  in  conclusion  he  gave  vent  to  words 


1  See  p.  293. 


458  PIERCE'S   ADMINISTRATION  [1864 

eminently  proper  for  a  philosophic  historian,  but  which 
sounded  strange  enough  in  the  midst  of  a  heated  debate. 
He  said :  "  I  share  the  opinions  and  the  sentiments  of  the 
part  of  the  country  where  I  was  born  and  educated.  .  .  . 
But  in  relation  to  my  fellow-citizens  in  other  parts  of  the 
country,  I  will  treat  .  .  .  their  characters  and  feelings  with 
tenderness.  I  believe  them  to  be  as  good  Christians,  as  good 
patriots,  as  good  men  as  we  are." 

The  speeches  in  the  Senate  in  favor  of  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill  were  not,  with  the  exception  of  those  of 
Douglas,  remarkable.  There  was  considerable  curiosity  in 
regard  to  the  position  of  Cass.  Although  in  the  early  part 
of  January  it  was  reported  that  he  would  take  advanced 
ground  in  favor  of  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise, 
an  opinion  became  current,  after  Douglas  had  in  substance 
incorporated  the  Dixon  amendment  in  his  bill,  that  Cass  was 
wavering  and  would  vote  against  the  Kansas-Nebraska  act.1 
"  He,"  wrote  a  prominent  Democratic  representative  from 
New  York  City,  "evidently  looks  upon  the  whole  move- 
ment, and  the  manner  in  which  it  has  been  made,  as  a  des- 
picable piece  of  demagogism  on  the  part  of  Douglas,  though 
he  does  not  like  to  say  so." a  John  Yan  Buren  had  hopes 
that  Cass  might  be  induced  even  to  head  the  opposition. 
"  There  are  but  two  men,"  he  wrote  to  Clemens,  "  who  can 
do  any  good  in  this  crisis — one  is  General  Cass,  the  other 
yourself.  If  you  will  agree  to  the  Nebraska  bill  of  last  year,' 
it  will  be  promptly  and  triumphantly  passed." 4  Cass  voted 
for  one  of  the  amendments  with  which  Chase  badgered 
Douglas,  and  he  explained  that  he  did  so  because  he  did  not 
like  the  phraseology  of  the  bill.  In  order  to  meet  this  ob- 
jection, Douglas  still  further  amended  his  bill  so  that  the 


1  See  correspondence  New  York  Courier  and  Enquirer,  Jan.  81st 
•  Letter  of  Mike  Walsh,  New  York  Herald,  Feb.  13th. 
»  See  p.  425. 

4  John  Van  Buren  to  ex-Senator  Clemens,  Feb.  3d,  1854,  New  York 
Evening  Po»t,  Feb.  llth. 


CH.V.]  DIFFERING  CONSTRUCTIONS  459 

crucial  section  should  read :  "  which  [the  Missouri  Com- 
promise act]  being  inconsistent  with  the  principles  of  non- 
intervention by  Congress  with  slavery  in  the  States  and 
territories,  as  recognized  by  the  legislation  of  1850,  com- 
monly called  the  compromise  measures,  is  hereby  declared 
inoperative  and  void,  it  being  the  true  intent  and  meaning 
of  this  act  not  to  legislate  slavery  into  any  territory  or 
State,  nor  to  exclude  it  therefrom ;  but  to  leave  the  people 
thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic 
institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States."  The  alteration  lay  in  the  use  of 
the  words  "  being  inconsistent  with"  instead  of  "  was  super- 
seded by,"  and  in  the  more  elaborate  explanation  of  the  in- 
tention of  the  act ;  in  this  shape  it  finally  became  a  law. 
This  satisfied  Cass,  who  declared  that  he  would  support  the 
measure,1  and  two  weeks  later  he  delivered  a  long  and  formal 
speech  advocating  it. 

Among  the  supporters  of  the  bill,  two  distinct  conceptions 
were  developed  of  what  would  be  the  practical  working  of 
the  act.  One  was  the  notion  of  Douglas  and  Cass,  agreed 
to  by  most  of  the  Northern  Democrats,  and  in  the  main  by 
the  Southern  Whigs.  It  was  their  idea  that  the  inhabitants 
of  the  territories  themselves  should  protect  or  prohibit  slav- 
ery. As  that  part  of  the  country  to  which  the  act  applied 
was  practically  unsettled,  they  eluded  the  decision  as  to 
when  this  sovereignty  should  begin,  or  as  to  how  great  a 
number  of  settlers  there  should  be  in  the  territory  before 
they  might  legislate  on  this  subject.  Cass,  goaded  to  define 
the  doctrine  of  which  he  was  the  author8  by  the  questions 
of  Southern  Democrats,  said  that  he  did  not  seek  "  in  the 
science  of  arithmetic  the  principles  of  the  science  of  political 
institutions ;"  and  he  maintained  that  the  world  had  never 


1  This  amendment  was  not  formally  introduced  until  Feb.  7th ;  but  the 
vote  on  the  Chase  amendment  was  on  the  6th.  This  amendment  was  then 
outlined  by  Douglas,  and  declared  satisfactory  by  Cass. 

*  See  the  Nicholson  letter. 


460  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1864 

seen  a  truer  basis  of  government  than  that  established  by 
the  one  hundred  and  one  Pilgrims  when  they  landed  at 
Plymouth. 

The  Southern  Democrats,  however,  believed  in  the  doc- 
trine of  Calhoun— that  as  slaves  were  property,  their  own- 
ers had  the  same  right  under  the  Constitution  to  carry 
their  negroes  into  the  new  territories  as  they  had  to  take 
their  horses  and  mules,  and  no  law  could  rightfully  be  made 
to  prevent  their  exercise  of  this  right.  It  was  true  that  the 
Missouri  restriction  in  set  words  prohibited  slavery  in  the 
Nebraska  territory ;  but  the  Southern  Democratic  senators 
were  all  sure  that  it  was  unconstitutional,  and  would  be  so 
decided  when  the  question  should  be  brought  before  the 
highest  tribunal.  Yet  to  have  the  Missouri  restriction  de- 
clared inoperative  and  void  by  Congress  was  more  speedy 
and  direct  than  to  have  it  decided  unconstitutional  by  the 
Supreme  Court,  and  the  Kansas-Nebraska  act,  therefore,  met 
their  approval.  But  if  it  became  a  law,  they  held  that  they 
would  have  a  right  to  take  their  slaves  into  these  territories, 
and  that  such  property  would  be  entitled  to  the  same  pro- 
tection as  any  other  property.  When  the  people  of  a  terri- 
tory came  to  the  point  of  applying  for  admission  as  a  State, 
then  it  would  be  decided  by  the  voice  of  those  inhabitants 
whether  the  new  State  should  be  free  or  slave. 

Chase  laid  great  stress  upon  this  difference  of  views  be- 
tween the  supporters  of  the  bill,  and  he  endeavored,  by  an 
amendment  and  pertinent  suggestions,  to  have  the  Senate 
declare  precisely  what  was  meant  by  the  act.  He  averred 
that  in  its  present  shape  it  settled  nothing,  and  that  misun- 
derstandings were  sure  to  arise  in  its  construction.  But  his 
amendment  only  received  ten  votes,  and  his  suggestions  were 
contemptuously  rejected.  The  reason  of  this  is  plainly  ap- 
parent. If  the  act  stated  that  the  first  settlers  of  the  terri- 
tory might  prohibit  slavery,  it  would  not  receive  the  full 
Southern  Democratic  vote ;  if,  on  the  other  hand,  it  declared 
the  doctrine  of  Calhoun,  hardly  a  Northern  senator  would 
dare  to  give  it  his  support.  This  difference  of  opinion  was 


CH.V.]  DIFFERING  CONSTRUCTIONS  461 

frequently  discussed  in  caucus ;  and  as  the  bill  looked  either 
way,  it  was  decided  to  put  it  through  and  leave  it  to  the  Su- 
preme Court  to  determine  which  of  the  two.  constructions 
was  correct.1 

Toombs  made  a  noteworthy  contribution  to  the  discus- 
sion when  he  denied  the  declaration  so  frequently  made, 
that  in  1850  no  one  pretended  that  the  compromise  meas- 
ures were  inconsistent  with  the  Missouri  restriction.  He 
said  that  in  Georgia  he  had  been  severely  criticised  for  hav- 
ing supported  the  compromise,  and  that  in  an  address  made 
to  the  people  of  his  State  to  vindicate  his  action,  he  had 
maintained  that  a  great  principle,  compromised  away  in  1820, 
had  "  been  rescued,  re-established,  and  again  firmly  planted 
in  our  political  system"  by  the  legislation  of  1850.  Yet 
Toombs  did  not  say  that  the  Missouri  restriction  was  abro- 
gated ;  and  if  that  were  his  meaning,  he  would  have  been 
practically  alone  in  his  opinion.  His  statement  did  not, 
therefore,  invalidate  in  the  slightest  degree  the  argument 
drawn  from  the  spirit  of  the  compromise  measures  or  the 
intent  of  their  originator  and  supporters. 

Douglas  managed  the  bill  in  an  adroit  and  energetic  man- 
ner, but  it  was  complained  that  he  was  at  times  dictatorial 
to  the  friends  of  the  measure.  Anxious  to  have  the  debate 
proceed  rapidly,  he  objected  to  a  postponement,  no  matter 
how  reasonable  might  be  the  cause.  He  chafed  at  the  de- 
lay that  Everett  asked  for  in  order  to  examine  and  consider 
carefully  the  last  amendment  of  Douglas  before  speaking 
to  the  subject,  and  he  was  urgent  that  Clayton  should  con- 
tinue speaking  when  physically  unable  to  do  so.  It  was 
foreign  to  the  nature  of  Douglas  to  be  discourteous,  but  he 
felt  the  necessity  of  haste.  While  he  could  at  no  time  have 
had  any  doubt  about  carrying  the  measure  through  the  Sen- 
ate, he  was  anxious  about  the  bill  in  the  House ;  for  that 


1  Speech  of  Benjamin  in  the  Senate,  May  8th,  1860 ;  see  also  speech  of 
Bell,  May  24th  and  25th,  1854 ;  and  speech  of  Douglas  in  the  Senate,  Feh 
23d,  1859. 


462  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1864 

body  was  more  amenable  to  public  opinion,  and  by  the  1st 
of  February  Douglas  knew  that  the  current  of  Northern 
sentiment  was  setting  strongly  against  his  measure.  The 
longer  the  delay,  the  greater  was  the  chance  of  representa- 
tives being  influenced  by  the  manifest  feeling  of  their  con- 
stituents. Douglas  was  always  present  in  the  Senate,  and 
eagerly  watched  the  progress  of  the  debate.  His  political 
prospects  were  bound  up  in  this  measure,  and  he  could  not 
afford  to  miss  a  single  trick.  He  did  not,  however,  speak 
as  often  as  Clay  did  on  the  compromise  measures,  but  these 
were  before  the  Senate  more  than  six  months,  while  the  de- 
bate on  the  Kansas- Nebraska  act  lasted  but  thirty -three 
days. 

Chase  tacitly  took  the  position  of  the  leader  of  the  op- 
position. He  was  ready  in  debate,  and  quick  to  see  and  lay 
bare  the  weak  points  of  the  adversary.  Yet  he  was  frank 
in  his  replies,  even  when  forced  to  answer  questions  he 
would  rather  have  left  unanswered;  for  while  he  knew  he 
could  not  be  too  radical  for  his  Free-soil  supporters,  he  felt 
that  the  time  had  come  when  he  must  appeal  to  a  larger 
constituency.  His  manner  was  described  by  Badger  "  as 
cool  and  unimpassioned  earnestness." 

Some  of  the  Southern  Whig  senators  justified  their  sup- 
port of  the  bill,  because  the  offer  of  the  repeal  of  the  Mis- 
souri Compromise  came  from  the  North ;  if  it  were  a  com- 
pact between  the  North  and  the  South,  the  two  parties  to  the 
contract  had  the  right  to  annul  it ;  and  as  the  restriction 
was  manifestly  in  the  interest  of  the  Northern  people,  they 
had,  in  a  spirit  of  magnanimity,  offered  through  their  sena- 
tors to  yield  their  advantage.  Could  it  be  expected  that  the 
South  would  refuse  this  generous  proffer  ? ' 

It  was,  indeed,  strange  that  honorable-  men  could  shield 


1  This  was  the  argument  of  Dixon,  Jones  of  Tennessee,  and  Clayton  of 
Delaware.  The  latter,  indeed,  did  not  vote  for  the  bill.  "  Clayton  speaks 
for  the  bill,  but  will  vote  against  it.  Cass  speaks  against  the  bill,  but  will 
vote  for  it."— New  York  Evening  Post,  March  2d. 


CH.V.]  THE  NORTHERN  PRESS  463 

themselves  under  such  a  miserable  subterfuge ;  for  no  fact 
was  ever  more  certain  or  easier  to  be  seen  than  that  the 
Northern  people  utterly  repudiated  the  action  of  the  Illinois 
senator  and  his  supporters.  Never  but  thrice  in  our  history 
has  a  feeling  so  spontaneous,  fierce,  and  sincere  spread  over 
the  North.  For  a  parallel  to  the  sentiment  of  February,  1854, 
we  must  look  backward  to  that  inspired  by  the  shedding  of 
American  blood  at  Lexington,  or  forward  to  the  grand  up- 
rising of  1861.  "  The  storm  that  is  rising,"  wrote  Seward, 
"  is  such  a  one  as  this  country  has  never  yet  seen."  '  In 
every  way  that  was  possible  a  free  and  earnest  people  ex- 
pressed their  opinion.  The  power  of  the  newspapers  was 
exercised  in  a  manner  to  justify  all  the  praise  that  has  ever 
been  bestowed  upon  an  unrestrained  press.  Ability  and 
zeal  combined  marked  every  step.  Greeley  and  Dana,  of 
the  New  York  Tribune;  Bryant  and  Bigelow,  of  the  Even- 
ing Post;  Raymond,  of  the  Times;  "Webb,  of  the  Courier 
and  Enquirer;  Bowles,  of  the  Springfield  Republican; 
Thurlow  "Weed,  of  the  Albany  Journal;  Schouler,  of  the 
Cincinnati  Gazette— all  bore  an  honorable  part  in  exciting 
and  guiding  public  opinion.  And  they  had  coadjutors,  young 
men  full  of  enthusiasm  for  a  righteous  cause,  who  were  glad 
to  begin  a  journalistic  career  under  the  inspiration  of  the 
noble  principle  of  opposition  to  the  spread  of  slavery.  Some 
of  them  have  written  their  reminiscences,  which  are  a  record 
of  pure  and  unselfish  labors  in  a  holy  war.  In  reading 
carefully  the  leading  articles  in  the  journals  of  this  period, 
one  is  struck  with  the  vigor  of  the  reasoning,  and  the  worthy 
motives  which  prompted  it.  Apparently  the  editors  de- 
termined their  course  without  ulterior  thoughts  as  to  what 
the  effect  might  be  on  their  pecuniary  interest,  or  whether 
it  would  suit  their*  party  or  faction. 

What  was  true  of  the  prominent  newspapers  which  have 
been  named  may  be  affirmed,  in  general,  of  the  opposition 
press  all  over  the  North.  The  "Whig  journals  were  unani- 


1  Seward  to  his  wife,  Feb.  19th,  Life  of  Seward,  vol.  ii.  p.  222. 


464  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1864 

mously  opposed  to  the  bill ;  the  Democratic  press  was  di- 
vided. In  the  main  it  could  be  said  that  the  newspapers 
which  favored  it  had  their  policy  dictated  from  Washing- 
ton.1 The  journals  which  opposed  the  repeal  of  the  Mis- 
souri Compromise  were  aggressive  in  tone ;  and  their  articles, 
which  had  the  ring  of  sincerity  and  earnestness,  were  fervent 
protests  against  the  violation  of  plighted  faith  and  against 
opening  the  door  to  an  extension  of  slavery.8  On  the  other 
hand,  the  arguments  of  the  newspapers  favoring  the  bill  were 
shuffling,  and  sounded  as  if  the  heart  of  the  writers  was  not 
in  the  cause  they  were  paid  to  advocate.3 


1  See  New  York  Evening  Post,  Feb.  7th.  In  New  York  State  the  Al- 
bany Argus  stated  that  thirty-seven  "  Hard ';  papers  and  two  "  Soft "  sup- 
ported the  bill,  while  thirty-eight  "  Soft "  papers  opposed  it ;  cited  by  Von 
Hoist,  vol.  iv.  p.  418,  note.  In  Ohio,  thirteen  Democratic  journals  were 
for  it,  forty-one  against  it.  .National  Intelligencer,  March  25th.  In  Wis- 
consin, four  Democratic  papers  supported  and  eleven  opposed  the  bill. 
Boston  Atlas,  Feb.  21st.  In  Illinois,  but  one  daily  journal  supported  it. 
Ibid.  The  five  daily  newspapers  of  Chicago,  one  of  which  Senator  Doug- 
las had  a  prominent  share  in  establishing,  were  against  it.  New  York 
Evening  Post,  Feb.  20th.  Only  two  daily  papers  in  Indiana  were  in  favor 
of  the  bill;  and  it  was  about  the  same  way  in  Michigan  and  Iowa  as  in 
Indiana  and  Illinois.  Boston  Atlas.  "In  some  hundred  newspapers 
which  we  have  just  looked  over,  the  expression  of  an  indignant  disap- 
proval of  the  Nebraska  bill  is  almost  unanimous.  It  is  a  perfect  chorus 
of  condemnation  and  remonstrance." — New  York  Evening  Post,  Feb.  15th. 

*  One  of  the  notable  contributions  to  the  discussion  may  be  found  in 
the  New  York  Tribune  of  Feb.  22d.    Greeley,  who  obviously  wrote  the  ar- 
ticle, says :  "We  know  Henry  Clay  did  not  deceive  us  with  regard  to  his 
views  and  purpose  in  urging  that  compromise  [the  compromise  of  1850] ; 
we  are  morally  sure  that  no  idea  of  repealing  or  '  superseding '  the  Mis- 
souri Compromise  entered  into  his  mind.    Others  may  have  been  deeper 
in  his  confidence ;  but  he  deceived  no  man,  and  he  discussed  the  whole 
subject  freely  with  us,  and  ever  regarded  it  as  one  wherein  the  territories 
[i.  e.,  Utah  and  New  Mexico]  were  to  inure  to  free  labor,  and  that  the  prac- 
tical business  was  to  save  the  South  from  all  needless  and  wanton  humil- 
iation." 

•  A  good  example  of  this  may  be  seen  in  the  able  paper,  the  New  York 
Journal  of  Commerce.    The  remarks  in  the  text  will  not  apply  to  the  New 
York  Herald,  which  advocated  the  bill  in  a  positive  and  flippant  manner. 


CH  V.]  PUBLIC  MEETINGS  465 

Public  opinion  usually  acts  more  quickly  through  the 
press  than  through  public  meetings.  People  will  not  as- 
semble to  pass  resolutions  on  any  subject  until  they  have 
had  time  to  get  at  the  facts,  to  discuss  them  with  their 
neighbors,  and  to  make  up  their  minds.  But  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill  was  a  measure  whose  provisions,  clearly  stated, 
were  its  own  condemnation;  and  the  newspapers  and  the 
Appeal  of  the  Independent  Democrats  had  made  the  intent 
of  the  bill  easily  intelligible.  Public  meetings  of  protest 
began  to  be  held  early.  New  York  City  was  one  of  the  first 
to  lead  off.1  On  January  30th,  two  or  three  thousand  con- 
servative people  met  at  the  Broadway  Tabernacle.  They 
were,  for  the  most  part,  the  solid  merchants  and  leading 
lawyers  of  the  city,  who  had  been  active  in  1850  in  working 
up  public  sentiment  in  favor  of  the  compromise  measures. 
This  meeting,  with  but  one  negative  vote,  declared  against 
the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  and  asserted  that 
such  action  "  would  impair  the  confidence  of  the  country  in 
the  integrity  of  the  South." a  A  gathering  in  Chicago  on 
the  8th  of  February  attracted  great  attention,  for  the  pro- 
ceedings were  directed  by  men  who,  though  they  had  been 
warm  personal  and  political  friends  of  Senator  Douglas, 
could  not  follow  where  he  led.  These  spoke  in  earnest  tones 
against  the  passage  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  act.'  On  the 
18th  of  February  a  people's  meeting  was  held  at  the  Broad- 
way Tabernacle,  New  York  City.  The  building  was  crowd- 
ed ;  people  were  glad  to  stand  in  the  aisles  arid  lobbies  for 
the  sake  of  hearing  the  speeches,  and  many  were  turned 
away  because  they  could  not  get  inside  the  doors.  The 
meeting  was  addressed  by  John  P.  Hale  and  Henry  Ward 
Beecher,  who  aroused  great  enthusiasm.  Kesolutions  de- 
nouncing the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  and  calling  upon  the 

1  The  first  meeting  of  which  I  have  found  any  notice  was  at  Cleveland 
on  Jan.  28th. 

*  New  York  Tribune,  Jan.  31st ;  see  also  the  Liberator,  Feb.  10th,  and 
the  New  York  Evening  Post  of  Jan.  31st. 

8  Boston  Atlas;  New  York  Tribune. 
I.— 30 


466  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1864 

President  to  veto  it,  if  passed,  were  adopted  with  demon? 
strations  of  intense  feeling.1 

Boston  likewise  had  two  meetings  in  Faneuil  Hall  to  pro- 
test against  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  The 
radical  gathering  was  addressed  by  Theodore  Parker;  the 
conservative  meeting  was  composed  largely  of  the  same  ele- 
ment that  had  assembled  together  to  endorse  Webster's 
7th-  of  -March  speech,  and  was  presided  over  by  Samuel 
Eliot,  the  Boston  representative  who  had  voted  for  the  Fugi- 
tive Slave  law.2 

These  meetings  which  have  been  mentioned  were  simply 
a  representation  of  what  was  taking  place  all  over  the 
North.  In  every  city  and  every  town,  people  of  the  same 
mind  came  together  and  expressed  their  sentiments.  The 
newspapers  had  columns  in  each  issue  which  were  entitled 
"  The  Yoice  of  the  Free  States  on  the  Nebraska  Question," ' 
or  "  The  Yoice  of  the  North,  No  Slavery  Extension," 4  and 
these  were  devoted  to  brief  accounts  of  public  meetings  the 
tenor  and  action  of  which  were  always  the  same.  At  last 
one  journal  which  had  devoted  a  great  deal  of  space  to  these 
expressions  of  opinion  felt  impelled  to  say :  "  If  the  Evening 
Post  were  three  times  as  large  as  it  is,  and  were  issued  three 
times  a  day,  we  should  still  despair  of  finding  room  for  any- 
thing like  full  reports  of  the  spontaneous  gatherings  which 
are  every  day  held  throughout  the  North  and  West "  to 
protest  against  the  passage  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  act.* 
Up  to  the  15th  of  March  two  to  three  hundred  large  popular 
meetings  had  been  held  to  denounce  the  bill,  while  there  had 
not  been  at  the  North  half  a  dozen  gatherings  to  sustain 
it.*  "We  have  never  known,"  said  the  Kichmond  Whig, 
"  such  unanimity  of  sentiment  at  the  North  upon  any  ques- 

1  New  York  Times  ;  New  York  Tribune. 
1  The  Liberator;  New  York  Tribune,  Feb.  24th. 
»  New  York  Evening  Post.  *  New  York  Tribune. 

•  Cited  by  the  Liberator,  April  7th. 

6  New  York  Courier,  March  15th,  cited  and  verified  by  the  Washington 
National  Intelligencer  of  March  18th. 


CH.V.]  NORTHERN  LEGISLATURES  467 

tion  affecting  the  rights  of  the  South  as  now  prevails  in  op- 
position to  the  Missouri  Compromise  repeal."  ' 

The  expression  of  the  authoritative  representatives  of  the 
people,  with  one  notable  exception,  was  all  in  the  same  di- 
rection. Between  January  1st  and  March  15th,  ten  of  the 
legislatures  of  the  free  States  were  in  session,  and  these 
bodies,  in  Maine,  Massachusetts,  Ehode  Island,  New  York, 
and  Wisconsin,  protested  against  the  passage  of  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill.8  The  legislatures  of  Pennsylvania,  New 
Jersey,  and  Ohio,  although  strongly  Democratic,  refused  to 
vote  on  resolutions  concerning  the  subject.  California  took 
no  action.  A  large  amount  of  influence  and  work  was 
brought  to  bear  upon  Illinois,  with  the  result  of  obtaining  a 
reluctant  approval  of  the  measure  from  her  legislature.3 


1  March  21st.    The  description  of  the  opinion  of  New  England  by  a 
Southerner  visiting  there  may  be  interesting :  "  They  are  '  boiling  over ' 
here  upon  the  Nebraska  bill;  all  parties,  Whigs  and  Democrats,  Silver 
Grays  and  Woolly  Heads,  Softs  and  Hards,  anti-slavery  and  even  the  lit- 
tle handful  of  pro-slavery  folks." — Private  letter  to  a  Washington  lady, 
dated  Boston,  Feb.  18th,  published  in  National  Intelligencer,  Feb.  28th. 
The  Boston  correspondent  of  the  New  York  Journal  of  Commerce  wrote 
Feb.  16th :  "  It  must  be  acknowledged  that  persons  who  have  hitherto 
been  quite  conservative  on  the  questions  before  the  country  are  now  giv- 
ing unmistakable  symptoms  in  the  opposite  direction.  .  .  .  They  begin 
to  feel  that  they  must  oppose  with  all  their  might  the  further  extension  of 
slave-holding  on  this  continent,  and  that  the  North  has  hitherto  been  too 
lukewarm  on  this  subject."     "  The  protest  against  the  Nebraska  bill  of 
Senator  Douglas  from  the  Northwest  will  be  long  and  loud.    It  comes 
not  from  anti-slavery  men,  but  from  men  of  all  parties." — Letter  from 
Iowa,  dated  Jan.  26th,  published  in  New  York  Independent. 

2  In  Maine,  the  resolutions  passed  the  Senate  by  a  vote  of  24  to  1,  the 
House  by  96  to  6 ;  in  Massachusetts,  the  Senate  was  unanimous,  the  House 
246  to  13.    The  Rhode  Island  Legislature  passed  the  resolutions  unani- 
mously.    In  New  York,  the  Senate  stood  23  to  6,  the  Assembly  80  to  27 ; 
in  Wisconsin,  the  majorities  for  the  resolutions  were  large.     New  York 
Courier,  March  15th,  cited  and  corrected  by  the  Washington  National 
Intelligencer  of  March  18th.     Maine,  Rhode  Island,  and  Wisconsin  were 
Democratic  States. 

8  Ibid.  The  vote  in  Illinois  stood :  Senate,  14  to  8 ;  House,  30  to  22 ;  but 


468  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1854 

Petitions  and  memorials  against  the  Kansas- Nebraska  act 
poured  in  to  Congress.  "  We  know  not,"  said  the  Liberator ', 
"  how  many  remonstrances  have  been  sent  to  Congress  from 
all  parts  of  the  free  States  against  the  passage  of  the  Ne- 
braska bill :  we  only  know  that  we  cannot  keep  pace  with 
them ;  while  the  first  memorial,  approving  the  bill,  has  yet 
to  be  presented  to  that  body." l  "  Sir,"  said  a  great  man  at 
Washington  to  a  friend,  "  every  ten  signatures  to  a  remon- 
strance against  this  bill  make  a  pale  face  at  Washington."  * 

Those  who  have  read  the  preceding  chapter  will  not  ex- 
pect any  such  display  of  sentiment  in  favor  of  the  measure 
at  the  South  as  there  was  against  it  at  the  North.  There 
had,  indeed,  been  exciting  political  contests  at  the  South, 
but  they  were  generally  connected  with  the  strife  of  candi- 
dates for  office,  at  which  time  interest  in  the  struggle  had 
been  aroused  by  impassioned  appeals  from  the  stump.  But 
a  healthy  public  opinion  which  was  not  worked  up  by  poli- 
ticians, and  which  manifested  itself  in  engrossing  private  dis- 
cussion, in  countless  letters  to  the  newspapers,  in  large  popu- 
lar meetings,  and  in  petitions  to  Congress  without  number, 
was  almost  absolutely  unknown  at  the  South.3  A  portion 
of  the  Southern  press  and  a  large  part  of  the  Southern  aris- 
tocracy, who  were  the  only  people  that  did  any  political 
thinking  in  their  section,  were  at  first  disposed  to  regard 
this  measure  of  Douglas  as  a  gift  of  the  Greeks.  It  is  true 
that,  in  1848,  Calhoun  had  originated  the  doctrine  that  the 
Missouri  Compromise  was  unconstitutional,  and  Southern 
thinkers  had  embraced  that  theory ;  but  Calhoun  himself  had 
never  proposed  its  abrogation ;  and,  indeed,  at  the  previ- 
ous session  of  Congress,  Atchison,  who  was  one  of  the  chief 


the  affirmative  vote  in  both  branches  made  up  less  than  one-half  of  the 
legislature. 

1  April  14th.  '  New  York  Evening  Post,  Feb.  20th. 

•The  South  does  not  speak  by  petitions  to  Congress,  said  Toombs; 
"  she  speaks  through  her  representatives  and  senators."— Senate,  May 
25th,  1854, 


CH.V.]  SOUTHERN  SENTIMENT  469 

apostles  of  slavery,  had  admitted  that  while  the  Missouri 
Compromise  was  a  great  error,  the  error  was  irremediable 
and  must  be  submitted  to,  for  it  was  evident  that  the  restric- 
tion could  never  be  repealed.  And  now  "  no  public  meet- 
ing of  the  people,  no  private  assembly,  no  convention,  no 
legislative  body,  had  asked  that  the  Missouri  restriction 
should  be  set  aside;  and  no  Southerner  in  Congress  had 
ever  proposed  its  repeal."  ' 

But  when  the  scope  of  the  Kansas -Nebraska  act  came 
to  be  ^thoroughly  understood,  when  it  was  noted  that  the 
friends  of  Southern  institutions  in  Congress  were  earnest  in 
its  favor  and  that  the  abolitionists  were  vehemently  opposed 
to  it,  the  newspapers  began  to  praise  Douglas  warmly  and  to 
advocate  his  measure  with  zeal.2  The  exceptions  were  few, 
and  were  practically  confined  to  New  Orleans  and  the  com- 
mercial cities  of  the  border  States.8  While  some  observers 
reported  a  feeling  of  indifference  in  regard  to  the  measure, 
this  arose  from  the  fact  that  it  was  not  perfectly  understood, 
or  because  its  passage  would  be  regarded  as  a  barren  vicr 
tory.*  There  was  no  doubt,  however,  that  the  Charleston 
Courier  faithfully  represented  Southern  opinion  when  it  re- 
marked, "  We  cherish  slavery  as  the  apple  of  our  eye,  and 


1  See  speech  of  Cullom,  Whig  representative  of  Tennessee,  April  llth. 

*  Compare  the  Richmond  Whig  of  Jan.  25th  and  Feb.  14th.     Jan.  25th  it 
is  "  that  tricky  demagogue,  Douglas ;"  Feb.  14th,  Douglas  has  "  exhibited 
a  disinterested  fearlessness."    See  New  York  Times,  Feb.  4th ;  also  article 
in  the  Columbia  (S.  C.)  Times  of  March  4th.    "Senator  Douglas  deserves 
well  of  his  country  for  having  originally  proposed  it." — Charleston  Cour- 
ier, Feb.  16th ;  also  letters  in  the  Washington  National  Intelligencer,  Jan. 
31st  and  Feb.  14th. 

*  The  New  Orleans  Commercial  Bulletin  was  strongly  opposed  to  it; 
gee  articles  of  Jan.  23d,  27th,  Feb.  18th,  24th,  and  March  8th.     The  New 
Orleans  Crescent  thought  the  measure  one  of  bad  policy  for  the  South ; 
see  article  of  Feb.  24th;  cited  in  the  New  York  Times,  March  8th.     The 
Louisville  Journal  and  Baltimore  American  gave  it  a  .qualified  condemna- 
tion, and  the  St.  Louis  Democrat  was  outspoken  against  it.     See  New 
York  Evening  Post,  Feb.  4th. 

4  New  York  Evening  Post,  March  17th  ;  New  York  Times,  Feb.  16th. 


470  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1864 

are  resolved  to  maintain  it,  peaceably  if  we  can,  forcibly  if 
we  must ;"  and  it  may  confidently  be  stated  that  when  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill  was  understood  to  be  of  benefit  to 
slavery,  Southern  sentiment  at  that  moment  became  concen- 
trated in  its  favor.1  "The  South  flies  to  the  bill,"  wrote 
Francis  Lieber  from  South  Carolina,  "  as  moths  to  the 
candle." a 

The  legislatures  of  the  slave  States  were  slower  to  act 
than  those  of  the  North.  Before  the  bill  passed  the  Senate, 
only  Georgia  had  spoken.  Her  House  unanimously,  and  the 
Senate  with  only  three  dissenting  votes,  adopted  resolutions 
strongly  in  favor  of  the  bill,  and  instructed  her  delegation  to 
vote  in  Congress  accordingly.  In  Tennessee  the  Senate  en- 
dorsed the  principles  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  act,  but  the 
House  laid  a  similar  resolution  on  the  table.8  Not  until 
after  the  bill  had  passed  the  United  States  Senate  did  the 
legislatures  of  Mississippi  and  Louisiana  adopt  resolutions 
approving  it.4 

And  now  the  day  had  come  when  a  vote  on  the  bill  was 
to  be  taken.  The  Senate  met  on  the  3d  of  March  at  the 
usual  hour,  and  an  animated  discussion  of  the  measure  con- 
sumed the  afternoon  and  evening.  The  floor  was  full  and 
the  galleries  were  crowded  when  Douglas  rose,  a  half  an 
hour  before  midnight,  to  close  the  debate.  He  offered  to 
waive  his  privilege  in  order  that  they  might  proceed  to  vote ; 
but  many  senators  protested,  and  begged  him  to  go  on.  The 
importance  of  the  occasion  and  the  influence  which  this 
speech  might  have  on  his  future  career  might  well  make 
even  as  ready  a  speaker  as  Douglas  tremble  when  he  thought 
what  he  must  confront.  The  bill  had  passed  to  a  third  read- 


1  Charleston  Courier,  Feb.  16th.  The  Richmond  Whig  said,  March  14th : 
"  The  South  are  united  for  the  removal  of  the  Missouri  restriction." 

1  Life  and  Letters  of  Francis  Lieber,  p.  269. 

*  New  York  Courier,  March  15th,  cited  and  corrected  by  the  National 
Intelligencer  of  March  18th. 

4  National  Intelligencer }  April  1st  and  4th. 


CH.V.]  DOUGLAS  CLOSES  THE  DEBATE  471 

ing  the  day  previous  by  a  vote  of  twenty-nine  to  twelve,  so 
that  argument  in  the  Senate  was  needless ;  but  the  people 
of  the  North  were  almost  unanimously  against  the  measure 
and  its  author,  and  it  was  to  them  that  Douglas  spoke  with 
extraordinary  energy  and  ability,  persuading  and  imploring 
them  to  reverse  their  verdict.  A  feeling  of  regret  that  he 
had  provoked  this  controversy  must  have  mingled  with  the 
excitement  of  the  combatant  in  the  contest ;  but  there  was 
no  trace  of  it  in  his  manner  as  he  applied  himself  vigorously 
to  the  work  of  justifying  himself,  of  defending  his  bill,  and 
of  hurling  defiance  at  his  opponents. 

The  appearance  of  Douglas  was  striking.  Though  very 
short  in  stature,  he  had  an  enormous  head,  and  when  he  rose 
to  take  arms  against  the  sea  of  troubles  which  opposed  him, 
he  was  the  very  picture  of  intellectual  force.  Always  a 
splendid  fighter,  he  seemed  this  night  like  a  gladiator  who 
contended  against  great  odds ;  for  while  he  was  backed  by 
thirty-seven  senators,  among  his  fourteen  opponents  were 
the  ablest  men  of  the  Senate,  and  their  arguments  must  be 
answered  if  he  expected  to  ride  out  the  storm  which  had 
been  raised  against  him.  Never  in  the  United  States,  in 
the  arena  of  debate,  had  a  bad  cause  been  more  splendidly 
advocated ;  never  more  effectively  was  the  worse  made  to 
appear  the  better  reason. 

The  opponents  of  the  bill,  he  said,  had  misrepresented  the 
issue  to  the  country ;  they  wished  the  people  to  believe  that 
the  paramount  object  of  the  bill  was  to  repeal  the  Missouri 
Compromise.  "  That  which  is  a  mere  incident  they  choose 
to  consider  the  principle.  They  make  war  on  the  means  by 
which  we  propose  to  accomplish  an  object  instead  of  openly 
resisting  the  object  itself.  The  principle  which  we  propose 
to  carry  into  effect  is  this :  That  Congress  shall  neither  legis- 
late slavery  mto  any  territories  or  State,  nor  out  of  the  same; 
but  the  people  shall  be  left  free  to  regulate  their  domestic  con- 
cerns m  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  In  order  to  carry  this  principle  into  practi- 
cal operation,  it  becomes  necessary  to  remove  whatever  legal 


472  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1864 

obstacles  might  be  found  in  the  way  of  its  free  exercise. 
It  is  only  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  this  great  funda- 
mental principle  of  self-government  that  the  bill  renders" 
the  Missouri  restriction  inoperative  and  void. 

Douglas  then  went  on  to  show,  by  extracts  from  his 
speeches,  that  as  he  thought  now,  so  had  he  thought  in 
1850 ;  and  at  that  time  the  legislature  of  his  State  believed 
that  the  principle  should  be  so  applied.1  We  are  contend- 
ing, he  maintained,  for  "  the  great  fundamental  principle  of 
popular  sovereignty ;"  and  as  the  Missouri  restriction  is  in- 
consistent with  that  principle,  it  ought  to  be  abrogated.  In- 
stead of  the  opponents  of  this  bill  talking  about  "  the  sanc- 
tity of  the  Missouri  Compromise  and  the  dishonor  attached 
to  the  violation  of  plighted  faith,  .  .  .  why  do  they  not 
meet  the  issue  boldly  and  fairly  and  controvert  the  sound- 
ness of  this  great  principle  of  popular  sovereignty  in  obedi- 
ence to  the  Constitution  ?"  It  is  because  "  the  doctrine  of 
the  abolitionists — the  doctrine  of  the  opponents  of  the  Ne- 
braska and  Kansas  bill  and  of  the  advocates  of  the  Missouri 
restriction — demands  congressional  interference  with  slav- 
ery, not  only  in  the  territories,  but  in  all  the  new  States  to 
be  formed  therefrom.  It  is  the  same  doctrine,  when  applied 
to  the  territories  and  new  States  of  this  Union,  which  the 
British  government  attempted  to  enforce  by  the  sword  upon 
the  American  colonies.  It  is  this  fundamental  principle  of 
self-government  which  constitutes  the  distinguishing  feature 
of  the  Nebraska  bill.  .  .  .  The  onward  march  of  this  great 
and  growing  country,"  he  continued,  made  it  necessary  for 
the  committee  on  territories  to  give  a  government  to  Ne- 
braska ;  and  then  we  met  this  question  of  slavery.  It  could 
be  settled  on  the  principle  of  1820,  which  was  congressional 
interference,  or  on  the  principle  of  1850,  which  was  non- 
interference. "  We  chose  the  latter  for  two  reasons :  first, 
because  we  believed  that  the  principle  was  right ;  and,  sec- 
ond, because  it  was  the  principle  adopted  in  1850,  to  which 


See  Appendix,  Congressional  Globe,  vol.  xxix.  p.  327. 


CH.V.]  DOUGLAS  CLOSES  THE  DEBATE  473 

the  two  great  political  parties  of  the  country  were  solemnly 
pledged."  If  we  will  adopt  this  principle,  the  senator  fur- 
ther argued,  "  it  will  have  the  effect  to  destroy  all  sectional 
parties  and  sectional  agitations."  If  the  slavery  question 
is  withdrawn  from  the  political  arena  and  removed  to  the 
States  and  territories,  each  to  decide  for  itself,  there  can  be 
no  more  agitation  of  slavery.  If  this  vexed  question  is  re- 
moved from  politics,  the  agitators  will  be  deprived  of  their 
vocation.  There  will  be  no  further  necessity  for  bargains 
between  the  North  and  the  South. 

"  I  have  not,"  said  Douglas  at  the  close  of  his  argument, 
"  brought  this  question  forward  as  a  Northern  man  or  as  a 
Southern  man.  I  am  unwilling  to  recognize  such  divisions 
and  distinctions.  I  have  brought  it  forward  as  an  Ameri- 
can senator,  representing  a  State  which  is  true  to  this  prin- 
ciple, and  which  has  approved  of  my  action  with  respect  to 
the  Nebraska  bill.  I  have  brought  it  forward  not  as  an  act 
of  justice  to  the  South  more  than  to  the  North.  I  have 
presented  it  especially  as  an  act  of  justice  to  the  people  of 
those  territories,  and  of  the  States  to  be  formed  therefrom, 
now  and  in  all  time  to  come.  I  have  nothing  to  say  about 
Northern  rights  or  Southern  rights.  I  know  of  no  such  di- 
visions or  distinctions  under  the  Constitution.  The  bill  does 
equal  and  exact  justice  to  the  whole  Union,  and  every  part 
of  it ;  it  violates  the  rights  of  no  State  or  territory,  but 
places  each  on  a  perfect  equality,  and  leaves  the  people 
thereof  to  the  free  enjoyment  of  all  their  rights  under  the 
Constitution." 

Thq  foregoing  extracts  willgive  an  idea  of  the  line  of  ar- 
gument which  Douglas  pursued ;  but  nearly  the  whole  speech 
must  be  read  to  comprehend  the  skill  with  which  specious 
arguments  were  urged,  and  duly  to  estimate  the  dexterity 
with  which  an  historical  account  of  the  Missouri  Compro- 
mise and  succeeding  events  was  used.  The  kindly  feeling 
of  the  audience  towards  him  from  the  first  was  increased  by 
his  audacity,  and  with  artful  management  he  gained  their 
sympathy.  He  told  how  he  had  been  maligned  all  over  the 


474  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1864 

country.  He  had  been  burned  in  effigy  in  all  the  abolition 
towns  of  Ohio  because  they  believed  the  misrepresentations 
of  Chase ;  he  had  been  hanged  in  effigy  in  Boston,  owing  to 
the  influence  of  Sumner ;  but  that  he  considered  an  honor, 
for  this  same  Boston  had  closed  Faneuil  Hall  to  the  immor- 
tal Webster.  A  remonstrance  had  been  presented  to  the 
Senate  in  which  he  was  called  "  a  traitor  to  his  country,  to 
freedom,  and  to  God,  worthy  only  of  everlasting  infamy ;" 
and  he  had  even  received  insulting  letters  from  Ohio,  rejoic- 
ing at  his  domestic  bereavements,1  and  praying  that  still 
greater  calamities  might  befall  him.  The  state  of  public 
sentiment  of  which  these  were  the  manifestations  was,  the 
senator  averred,  due  to  the  misrepresentations  of  his  oppo- 
nents, and  particularly  to  those  which  were  contained  in  the 
Appeal  of  the  Independent  Democrats. 

In  spite  of  his  warmth  of  argument  and  vehemence  of  at- 
tack, Douglas  showed  the  most  perfect  courtesy  to  his  an- 
tagonists. When  Seward,  Chase,  or  Sumner,  to  whom  he 
especially  addressed  himself,  desired  to  interrupt  him  to  cor- 
rect a  statement  or  briefly  reply  to  an  argument,  Douglas 
cheerfully  yielded  the  floor;  but  every  rejoinder  showed 
that  in  debate  he  was  more  than  a  match  for  any  one  of 
these  senators.  The  politeness  with  which  he  complied  with 
their  requests  for  a  hearing,  and  the  force  of  his  answers, 
caused  Seward  to  burst  out,  in  admiration,  "  I  have  never 
had  so  much  respect  for  the  senator  as  I  have  to-night." 

In  the  course  of  his  speech,  Douglas  took  up  Everett's 
argument,  and  showed  by  the  construction  he  put  upon 
Webster's  7th-  of  -March  speech  that  he  could  twist  the 
language  of  the  clearest  of  speakers  to  his  purpose  as  well 
as  he  could  distort  the  facts  of  history. 

While  the  suavity  of  Douglas  during  the  whole  night  was 
remarkable,  he  did  not  propose  to  let  Chase  and  Sumner  off 
as  easily  as  he  had  Seward  and  Everett.  Their  charge  that 
his  measure  was  offered  as  a  bid  for  Presidential  votes  was 


The  wife  of  Douglas  died  Jan.  19th,  1853. 


CH.V.]  DOUGLAS  CLOSES  THE   DEBATE  475 

a  rankling  wound,  and  he  demanded  with  a  show  of  sincere 
indignation  if  they  were  "  incapable  of  conceiving  that  an 
honest  man  can  do  a  right  thing  from  worthy  motives?" 
Nor  did  he  think  that  these  senators  were  proper  judges  of 
his  character  or  principles,  for  he  intimated  that  they  had 
obtained  their  seats  in  the  Senate  "  by  a  corrupt  bargain  or 
dishonorable  coalition."  This  angered  Chase,  who  met  it 
with  an  indignant  denial,  and  Sumner  made  a  calm  refuta- 
tion. In  the  excited  colloquy  which  followed  between 
Chase  and  a  Democrat  from  California,  who  insisted  on 
charging  directly  what  Douglas  had  only  implied,  the  "  Lit- 
tle Giant "  was  cool,  and,  restraining  the  impetuosity  of  his 
supporter,  continued  the  defence  of  his  own  motives ;  and, 
with  the  address  of  a  master  of  parliamentary  art,  he  made 
it  appear,  by  the  most  delicate  implication,  that  he  was  a 
self-sacrificing  patriot,  while  Chase  was  actuated  by  an  "  un- 
worthy ambition." 

Douglas  spoke  until  daybreak,  and  the  crowd  remained 
to  hear  the  last  words  of  the  giant,  who  was  flushed  with 
victory  and  seemed  to  exult  in  his  strength.  Senator  Hous^ 
ton  explained  why  he  could  not  consent  to  a  violation  of 
the  Missouri  Compromise ;  and  then  the  vote  was  taken. 
The  Senate  was  composed  of  sixty-one  members,1  of  whom 
fifty- one  were  present,  and  the  vote  stood  37  in  favor 
to  14  against  the  bill.  There  were  recorded  in  the  affir- 
mative fourteen  Northern  Democrats,  fourteen  Southern 
Democrats,  and  nine  Southern  Whigs ;  while  four  North- 
ern Democrats,  six  Northern  Whigs,  two  Free-soilers,  one 
Southern  Whig,  and  one  Southern  Democrat  voted  in 
the  negative.  The  negative  vote  is  a  roll  of  legislative 
honor,  and  deserves  detailed  mention.  It  was  composed  of 
Dodge  of  Wisconsin,  Hamlin  of  Maine,  James  of  Rhode 
Island,  Walker  of  Wisconsin,  Houston  of  Texas,  Demo- 
crats ;  Fessenden  of  Maine,  Fish  and  Seward  of  New  York, 
Foot  of  Vermont,  Smith  of  Connecticut,  Wade  of  Ohio,  and 


1  There  were  thirty-one  States,  but  there  was  one  vacancy. 


476  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1864 

Bell  of  Tennessee,  Whigs.;  and  Chase  and  Sumner,  Free- 
soilers.1 

As  the  senators  went  home  on  this  sombre  March  morn- 
ing, they  heard  the  boom  of  the  cannon  from  the  navy  -yard 
proclaiming  the  triumph  of  what  Douglas  called  popular 
sovereignty.  Chase  and  Sumner,  who  were  devoted  friends, 
walked  down  the  steps  of  the  Capitol  together,  and  as  they 
heard  the  thunders  of  victory,  Chase  exclaimed:  "They 
celebrate  a  present  victory,  but  the  echoes  they  awake  will 
never  rest  until  slavery  itself  shall  die."  a 

Before  the  bill  passed,  an  amendment  of  Badger  of  North 
Carolina  was  incorporated  in  it  to  the  effect  that  nothing  in 
the  act  should  be  construed  to  revive  the  old  Louisiana  law 
which  protected  slavery  in  the  whole  of  that  territory.  An 
amendment  of  Clayton  was  likewise  adopted,  which  provided 
that  only  citizens  of  the  United  States  should  have  the  right 
of  suffrage  and  of  holding  office  in  the  territories.  This 
was  intended  to  work  against  emigrants  from  Europe  who 
might  settle  there.  This  amendment  was  only  carried  by 
a  vote  of  22  to  20  ;  and  it  is  noticeable,  as  indicating  the 
feeling  towards  the  foreign  population,  that  all  the  sen- 
ators but  one  who  favored  this  amendment  were  from  the 
slave  States,  and  all  who  opposed  it  were  from  the  free 
States,  Douglas  voting  with  Chase,  Seward,  Sumner,  and 
Wade. 


be  noted  that  Everett's  name  does  not  appear  in  the  negative. 
He  remained  in  the  Senate  until  half-past  three  o'clock  in  the  morning, 
but  was  ill  and  could  not  remain  longer.  National  Intelligencer,  March 
4th,  and  Everett's  explanation,  March  7th.  He  showed  excessive  sensi- 
tiveness to  attacks  that  were  made  upon  him  for  his  failure  to  vote  against 
the  bill.  A  certificate  soon  appeared,  signed  by  Seward,  Wade,  Fish, 
Smith,  and  Foot,  vouching  his  inability  to  be  present.  This  did  not 
help  the  matter.  See  New  York  Evening  Post,  April  10th,  llth,  and  15th  ; 
also  Reminiscences  of  a  Journalist,  C.  T.  Congdon,  p.  278,  which  undoubt- 
edly refers  to  Everett.  See  also  private  letters  of  Seward,  Life  of  Sew- 
ard, vol.  ii.  p.  225.  Clayton  was  also  ill,  but  would  have  voted  against  the 
bill  ;  he  stated  his  reasons  in  the  Senate,  March  7th. 
1  Life  of  Chase,  Schuckers,  p.  156. 


CH.V.]  POPULAR  SOVEREIGNTY  4Y7 

This  speech  of  Douglas,  which  closed  the  debate,  has  been 
considered  at  length,  for  it  was  an  epoch-making  event  in  the 
decade  of  1850-60.  Cass  was  the  author  of  the  doctrine 
which  Douglas  so  warmly  embraced,  but  until  now  it  had 
been  known  as  congressional  non-intervention,  or  squatter 
sovereignty.1  Douglas  this  night  gave  it  the  name  of  popular 
sovereignty,  and  the  name  was  a  far  greater  invention  than 
the  doctrine.  The  ardent  advocacy  of  the  sovereignty  of  the 
people  was  certain  to  have  a  powerful  influence;2  and  while 
at  this  moment  the  fate  of  Douglas  seemed  trembling  in  the 
balance,  he  was  destined  to  rise  above  the  wave  of  popular 
indignation  which  now  threatened  to  overwhelm  him.  Using 
his  principle  of  popular  sovereignty  to  oppose  the  encroach- 
ments of  slavery,  he  would  in  the  future  enlist  under  that 
banner  many  who  now  regarded  his  work  with  execration. 

The  doctrine  of  popular  sovereignty  died  with  slavery. 
At  the  best  it  was  a  makeshift.  As  expounded  by  Doug- 
las, it  meant  that  Congress,  which  represented  the  political 
wisdom  of  an  educated  people,  should  abdicate  its  constitu- 
tional right  of  deciding  a  question,  which  demanded  the  most 
sagacious  statesmanship,  in  favor  of  a  thousand,  or  perhaps 
ten  thousand,  pioneers,  adventurers,  and  fortune-seekers  who 
should  happen  to  locate  in  a  territory.  As  an  expedient  to 
settle  an  angry  controversy,  and  as  one  of  a  series  of  com- 
promises, congressional  non-intervention  in  Utah  and  New 
•Mexico  was  justified  in  1850 ;  but,  used  as  a  principle  to  un- 
settle a  time-honored  settlement,  it  can  receive  at  the  bar  of 
history  only  an  unqualified  condemnation. 

A  spirit  had  been  roused  by  the  introduction  of  this  bill 
which  the  politicians  must  reckon  with.  On  the  13th  of 
March,  Hamilton  Fish,  senator  from  New  York,  present- 
ed a  petition,  signed  by  clergymen  of  diiferent  denomina- 
tions in  New  York  City  and  its  vicinity,  remonstrating 
against  the  passage  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  act.  The  bish- 


1  Douglas  made  a  distinction  between  squatter  and  popular  sovereignty. 
See  Cutts,  p.  123.      *  See  Life  and  Times  of  Samuel  Bowles,  vol.  i.  p.  115. 


478  PIERCE'S   ADMINISTRATION  [1854 

op  of  the  Episcopal  Church  headed  the  memorial,  which  was 
subscribed  by  a  majority  of  the  clergymen  of  New  York 
City.1  This  petition  attracted  no  attention,  and  it  was  or- 
dered to  lie  upon  the  table  in  the  usual  manner.  But  the 
next  day  Everett  presented  a  remonstrance  against  the  pas- 
sage of  the  Nebraska  bill,  signed  by  three  thousand  and 
fifty  clergymen  of  all  denominations  and  sects  in  the  differ- 
ent States  of  New  England.  There  were  in  that  section  of 
country  three  thousand  eight  hundred  ministers,3  and  this 
memorial  was  therefore  the  expression  of  the  sentiments  of 
a  very  large  part  of  the  whole  number.' 

The  petition  was  couched  in  strong  language.  It  said : 
"  The  undersigned,  clergymen  of  different  religious  denom- 
inations in  New  England,  hereby,  in  the  name  of  Almighty 
God,  and  in  his  presence,  do  solemnly  protest  against  the 
passage  of  what  is  known  as  the  Nebraska  bill.  .  .  .  We  pro- 
test against  it  as  a  great  moral  wrong,  as  a  breach  of  faith 
eminently  unjust  to  the  moral  principles  of  the  community, 
and  subversive  of  all  confidence  in  national  engagements; 
as  a  measure  full  of  danger  to  the  peace  and  even  the  exist- 
ence of  our  beloved  Union,  and  exposing  us  to  the  righteous 
judgments  of  the  Almighty."4 


1  Among  the  names  subscribed  to  it  were :  J.  M.  Wainwright,  Stephen 
H.  Tyng,  G.  T.  Bedell,  Isaac  Ferris,  George  B.  Cheever,  R.  S.  Storrs,  Jr., 
Theo.  L.  Cuyler,  Samuel  Osgood,  Henry  W.  Bellows,  Thomas  K.  Beecher. 
The  Independent  said  that  if  there  had  been  time  to  circulate  the  peti- 
tion more  widely,  many  more  names  would  have  been  obtained.  The 
Independent,  March  23d. 

*  See  Everett's  statement,  Congressional  Globe,  vol.  xxviii.  p.  617. 

3  Among  the  names  subscribed  to  this  memorial  were :  Lyman  Beecher ; 
Man  ton  Eastburn,  Episcopal  bishop  of  Massachusetts;  C.  A.  Bartol;  Theo- 
dore Parker;  T.  D.  Woolsey,  Pres.  of  Yale  College;  F.  Wayland,  Pres.  of 
Brown  University ;  Mark  Hopkins,  Pres.  Williams  College ;  Edward  Hitch- 
cock, Pres.  Amherst  College;  G.  Burgess,  Episcopal  bishop  of  Maine; 
Horace  Bushnell,  Hartford ;  E.  Ballou,  Montpelier.  See  the  Liberator, 
April  14th. 

*  The  petition  was  dated  March  1st,  and  the  purpose  was  to  present  it 
to  the  Senate  before  the  bill  passed. 


CH.V.]  THE  CLERGYMEN'S  PETITION  479 

The  reading  of  this  memorial  created  a  sensation  in  the 
Senate.  Douglas  made  some  fierce  and  sarcastic  remarks, 
and  rebuked  the  clergymen  for  quitting  their  proper  voca- 
tion and  meddling  in  an  affair  which  they  did  not  under- 
stand. They  had,  he  said,  "  desecrated  the  pulpit  and  pros- 
tituted the  sacred  desk  to  the  miserable  and  corrupting 
influence  of  party  politics." 

Somewhat  more  than  a  month  later,  Douglas  himself  pre- 
sented a  petition  against  the  bill  of  live  hundred  and  four 
clergymen  of  the  Northwestern  States,  which  emanated 
from  Chicago,  and  which  was  similar  in  language  to  the 
New  England  petition.  He  made  this  the  text  of  a  speech 
which  criticised  severely  the  interference  of  preachers  in 
affairs  of  State. 

Douglas  and  the  Southern  senators  might  cry  down  these 
manifestations,  but  in  truth  they  were  the  inception  of  a 
movement  which  was  destined  to  have  a  powerful  influence 
towards  the  abolition  of  slavery.  On  the  compromise  meas- 
ures clergymen  had  been  divided ;  indeed,  many  of  high  sta- 
tion had  counselled  submission  to  the  Fugitive  Slave  law. 
Now,  however,  they  were  practically  united,  and  they  con- 
sidered it  their  duty  to  preach  sermons  against  what  they 
believed  to  be  a  violation  of  plighted  faith.1 

It  will  be  generally  conceded  that  on  political  questions 
which  are  those  of  mere  expediency  the  minister  should  be 
silent.  It  would  to-day 2  shock  the  church-going  community 
to  hear  from  the  pulpit  arguments  directed  to  show  that  a 
high  tariff  or  free  trade  was  demanded  by  the  law  of  God ; 
but  when  the  paramount  political  issue  becomes  intertwined 
with  a  sacred  moral  principle,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  preacher 
to  declare  that  principle,  and  to  urge  his  hearers  to  make 


1  Douglas  said  that  on  one  day  in  New  England  fifteen  hundred  to  two 
thousand  sermons  were  preached  against  the  bill.  Appendix,  Congres- 
sional Globe,  vol.  xxix.  p.  656.  The  religious  and  secular  newspapers  of 
this  time  are  full  of  reports  of  sermons  on  the  subject. 

1  1892. 


480  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1854 

their  political  action  conform  to  the  behests  of  the  moral 
law.  The  slavery  question  had  a  moral  as  well  as  a  polit- 
ical side.  The  ministers  would  have  been  recreant  to  their 
calling  had  they  not  proclaimed  from  their  pulpits  what  the 
spirit  of  their  religion  prompted  them  to  speak.  This  wide- 
spread agitation  from  the  pulpit  is  a  striking  evidence  of 
the  deeply  stirred-up  feeling  at  the  North.  It  was  patent 
that  the  preachers  spoke  to  willing  listeners,  and  that  their 
congregations  would  stand  by  them  in  the  position  they  had 
taken. 

The  bill  now  went  to  the  House  of  Representatives,  and 
the  first  action  of  this  body  showed  that  it  paid  atten- 
tion to  the  demonstrations  of  popular  sentiment  which  the 
Senate  had  depreciated  and  disregarded.  On  the  21st  of 
March,  the  Senate  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  came  up  in  order, 
and  Richardson,1  who  was  thoroughly  devoted  to  Douglas 
and  his  interests,  moved  that  it  be  referred  to  the  committee 
on  territories,  of  which  he  was  the  chairman.  Cutting,  a 
member  from  New  York  City,  who  belonged  to  the  faction 
of  "  Hards,"  at  once  moved  that  it  be  referred  to  the  com- 
mittee of  the  whole  on  the  state  of  the  Union,  and  demand- 
ed the  previous  question.  He  stated  that  he  was  in  favor  of 
the  principle  of  the  bill ;  but  the  representatives  owed  it  to 
the  country  to  consider  this  "grave  and  serious  question" 
carefully,  to  correct  whatever  imperfections  there  were  in 
the  measure  as  it  had  come  from  the  Senate,  and  to  make 
plain  to  the  people  of  the  North  what  was  intended  by  this 
legislation ;  for  it  was  undeniable  that,  "  since  its  introduc- 
tion into  Congress,  the  North  would  seem  to  have  taken  up 
arms,  and  to  have  become  excited  into  a  sort  of  civil  insur- 
rection." In  spite  of  the  protest  of  Richardson  that  such  a 
reference  of  the  bill  "  would  be  killing  it  by  indirection," 
Cutting's  motion  prevailed  by  a  vote  of  110  to  95.  This 
action  was  a  defeat  for  the  friends  of  the  measure,  and  es- 
pecially incensed  Breckinridge,  of  Kentucky,  who  said  that, 


1  Richardson  was  from  Illinois. 


CH.V.]         THE  KANSAS-NEBRASKA  BILL  IN  THE  HOUSE  481 

having  been  done  "  under  the  guise  of  friendship  to  the  bill, 
it  was  the  act  of  a  man  who  throws  his  arm  in  apparently 
friendly  embrace  around  another  saying,  'How  is  it  with 
thee,  brother  ?'  and  at  the  same  time  covertly  stabs  him  to 
the  heart."  Some  of  the  opponents  of  the  bill  were  disposed 
to  think  that  it  had  no  chance  of  passing  the  House  at  this 
session ;  but  those  who  had  the  best  knowledge  and  clearest 
judgment  thought,  with  the  New  York  Tribune,  that  the 
snake  was  scotched,  not  killed.1  As  a  matter  of  fact,  this 
reference  placed  the  bill  at  the  foot  of  the  calendar ;  there 
were  fifty  bills  ahead  of  it,  and  it  could  not  be  reached  in 
the  regular  course  of  legislation.8 

The  shrewd  anticipation  of  Douglas,  that  the  help  of 
the  administration  would  be  needed  to  carry  the  measure 
through  the  House,  was  realized.  Marcy,  however,  who  had 
more  influence  with  the  representatives  than  any  other  mem- 
ber of  the  cabinet,  was  indifferent  to  the  fate  of  the  measure. 
Indeed,  after  Douglas  introduced  the  substitute,  Marcy's  ap- 
prehensions of  the  effect  of  it  on  the  Democratic  party  were 
so  grave  that  he  entertained  the  idea  of  resigning  his  posi- 
tion, and  took  advice  from  his  personal  and  political  friends 
regarding  his  line  of  duty.  The  drift  of  their  opinion  was 
that  he  ought  to  remain.  The  "  Softs  "  had  now  an  equal 
amount  of  the  patronage  and  influence  of  New  York  State ; 
but  should  Marcy  retire,  it  was  feared  that  the  "  Hards " 
would  gain  the  supremacy.8  It  may  be  presumed  that  in 
Marcy's  mind  a  higher  motive  was  mixed  with  the  lower, 
and  that  he  felt  that,  if  he  resigned,  a  secretary  of  state 
might  be  chosen  who  would  truckle  to  the  Southern  propa- 
ganda, and  give  them  effective  aid  in  carrying  out  schemes 
prejudicial  to  the  country. 


1  March  23d.  8  See  Congressional  Globe,  vol.  xxviii.  p.  763. 

3  Wilson's  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power,  vol.  ii.  p.  382.  This  was 
stated  on  the  authority  of  Reuben  E.  Fenton,  a  "  Soft "  representative 
from  New  York.  See  also  "Washington  correspondence  New  York  Cou- 
rier and  Enquirer,  Jan.  31st  and  Feb.  25th. 

L— 31 


482  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1854 

The  vacillation  of  the  President  undoubtedly  caused  uneas- 
iness among  the  supporters  of  the  measure.  When  under  the 
influence  of  Davis  and  Gushing,  he  was  an  enthusiastic  friend 
of  it,  and  expressed  himself  warmly  in  favor  of  the  princi- 
ple of  the  bill;1  when  chilled  by  the  doubts  of  Marcy, 
he  wavered.  "  You  ask  me,"  wrote  Dix,  "  what  General 
Pierce's  opinion  is.  I  do  not  know.  Some  say  he  is  for 
the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise — others  as  confi- 
dently that  he  is  against  it." a  The  result  of  the  New  Hamp- 
shire election  might  well  make  him  halt  between  the  two 
opinions:.  His  native  State,  which  had  given  him  a  hand- 
some majority  for  President,  was  now  only  carried  with  great 
difficulty  by  the  Democratic  governor;  and,  what  was  of 
more  importance,  the  lower  House  of  the  legislature  was  so 
strongly  anti-Nebraska  that  it  would  insure  the  choice  of 
two  opposition  senators  in  the  place  of  Norris  and  Williams, 
who  had  voted  for  the  Kansas-Nebraska  act.  But,  in  spite 
of  internal  dissensions  and  the  unsteadiness  of  the  Presi- 
dent, the  authoritative  public  expressions  of  the  adminis- 
tration were  all  one  way.  It  was  announced  that  the  pat- 
ronage would  be  used  in  the  interest  of  those  representatives 
who  voted  for  the  bill ; 3  and  the  morning  after  the  House 
had  consigned  it  to  the  committee  of  the  whole,  the  Union 
declared  that  the  Kansas  -  Nebraska  project  had  become 
a  prominent  measure  of  President  Pierce's  administration. 
"  If  it  be  defeated  in  the  House,  it  will,  it  must  be  admit- 
ted, be  a  defeat  of  the  administration."*  Important  ap- 
pointments were  withheld  in  order  that  they  might  be  used 
to  reward  the  constant  friends  of  the  bill ;  alluring  bait  was 
held  out  to  those  who  were  lukewarm,  and  threats  were 


1  See  letter  of  Jeremiah  Clemens  to  Franklin  Pierce,  March  24th, 
Washington  Union,  March  26th. 

8  Letter  of  Dix  to  J.  C.  Curtis,  Feb.  25th,  Memoirs  of  J.  A.  Dix,  vol.  i 
p.^85. 

*  Washington  Union,  March  7th,  quoted  by  Von  Hoist. 

4  Wathington  Union,  March  22d. 


CH.V.]     THE  KANSAS-NEBRASKA  BILL  AND  THE  PRESIDENT       483 

employed  to  coerce  the  representatives  who  were  disposed 
to  rebel  against  the  dictates  of  the  party  leaders.  All  the 
members  of  the  cabinet,  except  Marcy  and  McClelland,  were 
working  for  the  measure,  and  Davis  and  Gushing  were  earn- 
est and  indefatigable  advocates. 

As  the  bill  slept  in  the  committee  of  the  whole,  some  of 
its  friends  and  some  of  its  enemies  began  to  think  that  the 
project  would  not  be  revived  this  session.1  But  they  little 
knew  Douglas  who  thought  one  check  would  daunt  him. 
He  thoroughly  understood  the  situation.  He  was  aware 
that  many  Northern  Democratic  representatives  would  se- 
cretly delight  if  the  bill  were  never  brought  to  a  vote  in  the 
House,  yet  these  same  men  would  feel  constrained  to  give  it 
their  voice  when  the  question  was  actually  put.  They  would 
not  dare  to  resist  the  power  of  the  administration  and  that 
party  discipline  which,  having  been  instituted  by  Jefferson, 
had  gained  force  by  use,  and  was  never  so  powerful  as  now. 

On  the  8th  of  May  the  result  of  the  pressure  became  man- 
ifest. On  that  day  Eichardson,  the  trusted  lieutenant  of 
Douglas,  obtained  the  floor  after  the  reading  of  the  journal, 
and  moved  that  the  House  resolve  itself  into  the  committee 
of  the  whole  on  the  state  of  the  Union.  He  frankly  avowed 
that  his  object  was  to  have  the  committee  lay  aside  all  bills 
which  had  the  precedence  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  so 
that  they  might  at  once  proceed  to  its  consideration.  While 
the  Senate  act  had  been  placed  at  the  foot  of  the  calendar, 
there  were  but  eighteen  bills  ahead  of  the  House  bill,  which 
had  been  reported  by  the  House  committee  of  territories, 
and  which  was  the  same  as  the  Senate  bill  before  it  had  been 
amended.  Eichardson  now  moved  to  lay  aside  one  by  one 


1  "  The  Nebraska  bill  lies  quietly  in  the  committee  of  the  whole.  .  .  . 
The  Nebraska  bill  is  considered  dead.  .  .  .  Killed  by  Cutting."— New 
York  Herald,  April  6th.  "  We  now  believe  it  most  improbable  that  any 
bill  repudiating  the  Missouri  restriction  can  be  forced  through  the  pres- 
ent House."— New  York  Tribune,  April  27th.  The  latter  is  quoted  by 
Von  Hoist. 


484  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1864 

these  bills.  The  question  was  put  eighteen  times,  and  each 
time  the  majority  voted  with  their  leader.  The  House  Kan- 
sas-Nebraska bill  was  then  reached,  when  Richardson  pro- 
posed as  a  substitute  a  bill  which  was  the  same  as  the  Senate 
act,  with  the  exception  of  the  Clayton  amendment.  This 
was,  the  next  two  days,  debated  in  committee.  On  Thurs- 
day, May  llth,  Kichardson  obtained  the  floor  almost  imme- 
diately after  the  reading  of  the  journal, Amoved  that  the  de- 
bate close  the  next  day  at  twelve  o'clock,  and  on  that  motion 
called  for  the  previous  question.  At  this,  the  pent-up  feel- 
ing of  the  opponents  of  the  measure  broke  forth.  They  im- 
plored Richardson  for  more  time ;  they  protested  against 
this  summary  closing  of  debate  as  rank  injustice.  An  in- 
formal discussion  was  permitted  by  the  speaker,  in  order  to 
see  whether  an  understanding  could  not  be  arrived  at ;  but 
the  feeling  was  so  intense  that  heated  expressions  were  not 
avoided,  and  the  breach  became  wider.  One  member  roused 
the  wrath  of  others  by  calling  the  bill  a  "  swindle."  Alex- 
ander H.  Stephens  expressed  the  willingness  of  the  majority 
to  give  the  minority  a  reasonable  time  for  debate,  provided 
they  would  then  allow  a  vote  to  be  taken  ;  but  he  emphatic- 
ally declared  that  if  factious  opposition  were  made,  it  would 
be  met "  as  factious  opposition  in  this  House  has  always  been 
met."  Lewis  D.  Campbell '  cried,  amidst  shouts  of  approval : 
"  I  will  resist  the  further  progress  of  this  bill  by  all  the  means 
which  the  rules  of  the  House  place  in  my  power,  even  though 
gentlemen  may  call  it  faction."  Then  filibustering  under 
the  leadership  of  Campbell  began.  Motions  to  adjourn, 
motions  to  adjourn  to  a  fixed  time,  motions  for  a  call  of  the 
House,  followed  one  another.  Then  a  member  would  ask 
to  be  excused  from  voting,  and  a  friend  would  move  that 
he  be  excused ;  and  on  all  these  motions  the  yeas  and  nays 
were  called  for.  In  short,  all  kinds  of  dilatory  motions  were 
used  with  skill  by  men  who  thoroughly  understood  the  rules 
of  the  House,  and  they  were  supported  by  a  determined 


Of  Ohio. 


CH.  V.]          THE  KANSAS-NEBRASKA  BILL  IN  THE  HOUSE  485 

minority.  The  session  continued  all  day  Thursday,  all  of 
Thursday  night,  and  all  day  Friday,  without  reaching  any 
result.  At  times  the  monotonous  call  of  the  yeas  and  nays 
would  cease,  and  attempts  would  be  made  by  the  more  mod- 
erate of  both  sides  to  come  to  some  arrangement,  when  a 
remark  would  be  interjected  by  some  member  which  would 
provoke  an  angry  reply,  and  the  uproar  and  confusion  would 
begin  again.  Douglas  was  on  the  floor  of  tfye  House  a  large 
share  of  the  time  for  the  purpose  of  directing  his  followers, 
but  he  and  Eichardson  did  little  but  watch  and  wait  for  a 
subsidence  of  the  excited  feeling.  It  was  after  eleven  o'clock 
on  Friday  night  when,  as  a  result  of  a  talk  between  Camp- 
bell and  Eichardson,  the  latter  stated  that,  as  a  number  of 
the  opponents  of  the  bill  had  signified  their  desire  that  they 
might  have  until  the  next  day  for  deliberation,  he  would 
move  an  adjournment.  The  House  was  now  in  a  very  ex- 
cited state.  The  nervous  tension  caused  by  loss  of  sleep, 
irregular  hours,  and  powerful  emotion  was  manifest.  Those 
who  were  accustomed  to  use  stimulants  in  times  of  excite- 
ment were  inflamed  by  strong  drink.  It  had  been  freely 
talked  that  a  disturbance  was  liable  to  occur,  and  many 
members  came  to  the  House  armed  for  the  fray.  A  spark 
only  was  needed  to  produce  an  explosion. 

Hunt,  a  Whig  from  Louisiana  opposed  to  the  measure, 
who  many  times  had  tried  to  pour  oil  upon  the  troubled 
waters,  now  made  a  patriotic  and  amicable  appeal  to  Eich- 
ardson to  give  his  friends  until  Monday  for  consideration. 
Eichardson  made  a  courteous  reply,  saying  it  was  beyond 
his  power  to  grant  the  request,  but  hoped  that  on  the  mor- 
row a  desirable  result  might  be  reached.  Had  the  speaker1 
then  put  the  question,  trouble  would  have  been  avoided  ; 
but,  with  praiseworthy  intentions,  he  permitted  a  desultory 
discussion,  during  which  Alexander  Stephens  made  some 
fiery  remarks.  This  brought  Campbell  to  his  feet,  who  had 


1  Linn  Boyd,  of  Kentucky,  was  speaker,  but  at  this  moment  Orr,  of 
South  Carolina,  was  in  the  chair. 


486  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1854 

started  to  reply  when  he  was  called  to  order  by  Seward,  of 
Georgia.  It  must  be  understood  that  this  discussion  was  by 
unanimous  consent,  no  debatable  question  being  before  the 
House,  and  no  member  could  speak  if  called  to  order  by  an- 
other. The  interposition  of  Seward  was  unfair,  and  cries  of 
order  went  up  from  all  parts  of  the  hall.  Above  the  confu- 
sion could  be  heard  the  voice  of  Campbell:  "I  shall  resist 
this  measure  to  the  bitter  end.  I  say  so,  never  minding  the 
gentleman  who  calls  me  to  order."  Amidst  repeated  shouts 
of  "Order!"  Seward  retorted:  "There  are  other  places 
instead  of  this  where  personal  difficulties  may  be  settled." 
Confusion  was  now  confounded.  Members  crowded  around 
Campbell.  Many  got  on  the  tops  of  the  desks.  Above  the 
din  Campbell  vehemently  exclaimed :  "  I  tell  you,  gentle- 
men, that  I  shall  resist  this  measure  with  all  the  power  that 
I  can  to  the  bitter  end."  Members  still  continued  to  crowd 
around  Campbell,  and  it  was  reported  that  weapons  were 
drawn,  and  that  an  attempt  was  made  to  use  one  by  Ed- 
mundson,  of  Virginia.  The  speaker  did  his  best  to  pre- 
serve order ;  he  prayed  all  lovers  of  order  to  assist  him,  and 
he  commanded  the  sergeant-at-arms  to  use  the  emblem  of 
authority.  The  sergeant-at-arms,  advancing  with  the  mace 
of  the  House,  arrested  Edmundson,  compelled  members  to 
resume  their  seats,  and  was  successful  in  partially  restoring 
order.  The  speaker  then  cut  off  all  further  attempts  at  dis- 
cussion, and,  as  soon  as  possible,  put  the  motion  of  Richard- 
son, and  declared  the  House  adjourned.  By  his  prompt 
action  he  undoubtedly  prevented  a  bloody  affray.  It  de- 
serves to  be  noted  that  among  the  gentlemen  who  effectu- 
ally assisted  the  speaker  in  preventing  a  disgraceful  brawl 
were  Aiken  and  Keitt,  of  South  Carolina.  The  sitting  came 
to  a  close  at  twenty-seven  minutes  before  midnight,  the 
House  having  been  in  continuous  session  nearly  thirty-six 
hours.1  

1  See  Congressional  Globe,  Washington  correspondence  New  York  Cour- 
ier and  Enquirer,  New  York  Times,  and  New  York  Herald. 


CH.V.]         THE  KANSAS-NEBRASKA  BILL  IN  THE  HOUSE  487 

The  next  day's  session  of  the  House  was  short,  and  noth- 
ing was  done.  On  this  Saturday,  May  13th,  an  enthusiastic 
anti-Nebraska  meeting  of  five  thousand  people  was  held  in 
the  City  Hall  Park,  New  York  City,  the  assemblage  being 
composed  chiefly  of  mechanics.  The  speeches  were  heard  at- 
tentively, and  the  resolutions  responded  to  with  earnestness. 
One  of  these  declared  that  they  would  vote  for  no  repre- 
sentative who  gave  his  voice  in  Congress  for  the  repeal  of 
the  Missouri  Compromise.1 

On  Monday,  May  15th,  Eichardson  proposed  to  give  until 
Saturday  for  debate.  This  offer  would  undoubtedly  have 
been  made  before,  had  not  a  special  order  on  the  Pacific 
Kailroad  bill  stood  in  the  way.  To  postpone  this  now,  a 
suspension  of  the  rules  was  necessary,  and  eighteen  North- 
ern Democrats,  who  had  hitherto  voted  in  the  opposition, 
gave  their  voices  on  the  side  of  the  majority,  which  made 
the  requisite  two-thirds  vote ;  and  it  was  then  decided  that 
the  debate  should  close  on  the  Saturday  following.  The 
action  of  these  Democrats  was  severely  criticised  by  the 
Whigs,  and  they  were  charged  with  being  recreant  to  prin- 
ciple and  dominated  by  party  considerations ;  but,  in  truth, 
such  questioning  of  motives  was  liable  to  be  unjust.  It 
must  always  occur  to  some  congressmen  of  the  minority,  as 
it  does  to  the  philosophic  observer,  that  filibustering  is  an 
inane  mode  of  accomplishing  an  object.  It  rarely  defeats 
the  aim  of  the  majority,  although  indeed  it  may  postpone 
action.  It  is  true  that  there  was  abundant  reason  to  sup- 
pose that  if  action  were  not  reached  on  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
bill  this  session,  it  would  not  be  revived  at  the  next ;  but  it 
was  also  true  that  the  majority  was  large  enough  and  de- 
termined enough  to  keep  the  House  in  session  until  the 
measure  was  passed.  The  assertion  of  the  minority  that 
the  majority  wanted  to  stifle  debate  was,  of  course,  a  sub- 
terfuge. Already,  Kichardson  stated,  eighty  speeches  had 
been  made  in  the  House  on  the  question,  which  was  more 


1  New  York  Times,  May  15th. 


488  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1854 

than  had  ever  been  made  on  any  previous  measure;1  and 
before  the  bill  came  to  a  vote  this  number  was  increased 
to  one  hundred.3 

The  discussion  proceeded  quietly  the  remaining  days  of 
the  week,  the  House  holding  long  sessions.  On  Saturday, 
the  20th,  the  members  came  together  at  nine  o'clock.  The 
debate  closed  soon  after  twelve;  the  opposition  badgered 
the  majority  the  rest  of  the  day  by  offering  amendments 
and  speaking  to  them  under  the  five-minute  rule.  On  Mon- 
day, May  -22d,  the  House  met  and  went  immediately  into 
committee.  Stephens  then  moved  to  strike  out  the  enact- 
ing clause  of  the  bill,  avowing  that  his  object  was  to  cut  off 
all  amendments,  and  have  the  bill  reported  to  the  House  so 
that  a  vote  might  be  taken  on  it.  This  unusual  proceeding 
caused  a  great  sensation.  Indeed,  Stephens  had  great  diffi- 
culty in  getting  the  leaders  to  agree  to  this  mode  of  action.1 
One  member  declared  that  it  was  apparent  the  majority 
purposed  to  ride  rough-shod  over  the  minority.  Another,  in 
the  midst  of  the  excitement,  called  upon  his  friends  not  to 
vote  upon  the  question,  and  cried :  "  Oppose  tyranny  by  rev- 
olution!" The  motion  to  strike  out  the  enacting  clause 
was,  however,  agreed  to.  The  committee  rose  and  reported 
to  the  House.  Then  ensued  a  stubborn  contest.  The  minority 
used  every  means  in  their  power  to  prevent  a  vote ;  but  the 
management  of  Kichardson4  was  skilful,  and  he  had  Doug- 
las at  hand  to  prompt  him.  The  House  refused  to  concur 
in  the  report  of  the  committee,  which  struck  out  the  enact- 
ing clause  of  the  bill.  Well  might  Stephens  write,  "  I  took 
the  reins  in  hand,  applied  whip  and  spur,  and  brought  the 


1  Congressional  Globe,  vol.  xxviii.  p.  1161. 

*  "Washington  Sentinel,  quoted  by  New  York  Herald,  May  23d.    In  the 
House,  45  speeches  were  made  for  the  bill,  55  against ;  in  the  Senate,  17 
for,  11  against.     Total  number  of  set  speeches  to  May  21st,  128. 

8  Life  of  Alexander  H.  Stephens,  Johnston  and  Browne,  p.  277. 

*  Campbell  afterwards  (June  27th)  said  that  the  course  of  Richardson 
on  the  Nebraska  bill  was  "  open,  frank,  and  manly." 


CaV.]  THE  KANSAS-NEBRASKA  BILL  PASSED  489 

1  wagon '  out." '  It  was  nearly  midnight  when  a  vote  was 
reached.  The  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  was  then  passed  by 
113  yeas  to  100  nays.  Forty -four  Northern  and  fifty- 
seven  Southern  Democrats  voted  for  the  bill,  and  these 
were  reinforced  by  twelve  Whigs  from  the  slave  States ; 
against  the  bill  were  forty-five  Whigs  and  forty-two  Dem- 
ocrats from  the  North,  two  Democrats  and  seven  Whigs 
from  the  slave  States.  The  names  of  these  nine,  with  whom 
respect  for  plighted  faith  was  more  powerful  than  the  sup- 
posed interest  of  their  section,  deserve  a  record.  They 
were :  Puryear  and  Eogers  of  North  Carolina,  Bugg,  Cul- 
lom,  Etheridge,  and  Taylor  of  Tennessee,  Hunt  of  Louisiana, 
Whigs;  and  Millson  of  Virginia  and  Thomas  H.  Benton, 
Democrats.3 

No  man  in  either  House  of  Congress  brought  so  much  in- 
telligence and  experience  to  bear  upon  his  vote  as  did  Ben- 
ton.  He  had  come  into  political  life  on  the  Missouri  Com- 
promise. His  State  had  kept  him  in  the  Senate  for  thirty 
years ;  and  when  the  legislature  would  no  longer  elect  him, 
he  had  appealed  to  the  people  of  his  district  and  they  had 
sent  him  to  the  House.  He  was  not  only  a  statesman  of  ex- 
perience, but  he  was  writing  a  history  of  the  events  in  which 
he  had  been  an  actor  and  on  which  he  had  looked  as  a  spec- 
tator. Certainly  his  protest  should  have  been  regarded. 
He  spoke  as  a  statesman  whose  memory  and  judgment  were 
enlightened  by  the  investigation  of  an  historian.  He  de- 
clared that  the  movement  for  the  abrogation  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise  began  "  without  a  memorial,  without  a  petition, 
without  a  request  from  a  human  being ;"  that  this  scheme 
was  directed  against  a  compromise  which  was  not  a  "  mere 
statute  to  last  for  a  day,"  but  one  which  "  was  intended  for 
perpetuity,  and  so  declared  itself."  When  he  came  to  ana- 
lyze the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  he  referred  to  the  explana- 
tion which  Douglas  had  incorporated  in  his  substitute  in 


1  Johnston  and  Browne,  p.  277. 

*  This  analysis  is  taken  from  the  New  York  Tribune. 


490  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1864 

words  which  were  remembered  as  long  as  Douglas  was  a, 
candidate  for  the  presidency.1 

As  the  House  bill  had  left  out  the  Clayton  amendment,  it 
was  necessary  that  it  should  go  to  the  Senate  before  becom- 
ing a  law.  An  interesting  debate  of  two  days  occurred,  in 
which  important  revelations  were  made  of  the  efforts  used 
to  dragoon  a  few  objecting  Southern  Whigs  into  support  of 
the  measure.  The  difference,  moreover,  in  the  construction 
of  the  act  by  its  friends  became  again  apparent.  Judged 
by  the  succeeding  events,  the  most  remarkable  expressions 
came  from  Sumner,  for  he  had  an  insight  into  the  future. 
This  bill,  he  said,  "  is  at  once  the  worst  and  the  best  bill  on 
which  Congress  ever  acted.  It  is  the  worst  bill,  inasmuch 
as  it  is  a  present  victory  of  slavery.  ...  It  is  the  best  bill, 
...  for  it  prepares  the  way  for  that  '  All  hail  hereafter,' 
when  slavery  must  disappear.  It  annuls  all  past  compro- 
mises with  slavery,  and  makes  all  future  compromises  im- 
possible. Thus  it  puts  freedom  and  slavery  face  to  face, 
and  bids  them  grapple.  "Who  can  doubt  the  result  ?" 

The  bill,  as  it  had  come  from  the  House,  was  ordered  to  a 
third  reading  by  a  vote  of  35  to  13,  and  passed  the  Senate 
May  25th.  It  was  approved  by  the  President  May  30th. 

It  is  safe  to  say  that,  in  the  scope  and  consequences  of  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  act,  it  was  the  most  momentous  measure 
that  passed  Congress  from  the  day  that  the  senators  and 
representatives  first  met  to  the  outbreak  of  the  civil  war. 
It  sealed  the  doom  of  the  Whig  party ;  it  caused  the  forma- 
tion of  the  Kepublican  party  on  the  principle  of  no  exten- 
sion of  slavery ;  it  roused  Lincoln  and  gave  a  bent  to  his 
great  political  ambition."  It  made  the  Fugitive  Slave  law  a 


1  Benton  said  that  the  clause  "  It  being  the  true  intent  and  meaning 
of  this  act,  etc.,"  was  "  a  little  stump  speech  injected  in  the  belly  of  the 
bill." 

•  Life  of  Lincoln,  Herndon,  p.  861 ;  Life  of  Lincoln,  Arnold,  p.  115.  He 
wrote  to  a  friend :  "  I  was  losing  interest  in  politics  when  the  repeal  of 
the  Missouri  Compromise  aroused  me  again." — E.  B.  Washburne  on  Lin- 
coln, Reminiscences  of  A.  Lincoln,  North  American  Publishing  Company. 


CH.V.]  POWER  AND  INFLUENCE  OF  DOUGLAS  491 

dead  letter  at  the  North ;  it  caused  the  Germans  to  become 
Republicans ;  it  lost  the  Democrats  their  hold  on  New  Eng- 
land ;  it  made  the  Northwest  Republican ;  it  led  to  the  down- 
fall of  the  Democratic  party. 

It  may  be  asserted  with  confidence  that  no  man  in  the 
country  except  Douglas  could  have  carried  this  measure 
through  the  necessary  stages  of  becoming  a  law.  Five 
years  later,  in  familiar  talk  with  his  Boswell,  he  said :  "  I 
passed  the  Kansas-Nebraska  act  myself.  I  had  the  author- 
ity and  power  of  a  dictator  throughout  the  whole  contro- 
versy in  both  houses.  The  speeches  were  nothing.  It  was 
the  marshalling  and  directing  of  men,  and  guarding  from 
attacks,  and  a  ceaseless  vigilance  preventing  surprise," '  that 
led  to  the  success  of  the  measure.  It  is  certain  that  in  after- 
years  Douglas  came  to  believe  that  his  doctrine  of  .popular 
sovereignty  was  a  great  political  principle ;  and  it  is  proba- 
ble that  even  now  he  half  believed  that  there  was  some  oc- 
cult virtue  in  it  as  a  rule  of  action.  Persistent  advocacy 
often  convinces  the  advocate.  Yet,  laying  aside  entirely 
the  moral  question,  the  action  of  Douglas  as  a  statesman,  as 
a  politician  and  leader  of  a  party,  was  characterized  by  a  lam- 
entable lack  of  foresight  and  the  utter  absence  of  the  care- 
ful reflection  which  far-reaching  measures  of  legislation  de- 
mand. Douglas  had  asserted  in  1849  that  all  the  evidences 
of  public  opinion  seemed  to  indicate  that  the  Missouri  Com- 
promise "  had  become  canonized  in  the  hearts  of  the  Ameri- 
can people,  as  a  sacred  thing  which  no  ruthless  hand  would 
ever  be  reckless  enough  to  disturb."2  Having  once  had 
that  conviction,  therefore,  he  owed  it  to  his  country,  and  to 
his  party  as  well,  not  to  broach  this  measure  until  he  had 
given  it  deep  study  and  prolonged  consideration.  For  Doug- 
las loved  his  country ;  his  party  was  his  religion,  the  Con- 
stitution was  his  creed ;  and  in  following  the  leading  of  an 
inordinate  ambition  he  did  not  imagine  that  he  was  sacrifio 


1  Constitutional  and  Party  Questions,  Cutts,  p.  122. 

8  Quoted  by  Cullom,  Appendix,  Congressional  Globe,  vol.  xxix.  p.  539. 


492  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1864 

ing  his  party  and  injuring  his  country.  He  made  up  his 
mind  quickly ;  confiding,  like  all  spoiled  children  of  fortune 
who  have  been  endowed  with  rich  natural  gifts,  in  his  in- 
tuitive judgment,  he  thought  that  he  had  no  need  of  close 
application  and  methodical  reasoning.  "His  library  was 
never  clear  from  dust,"  said  a  friend  and  follower;1  and 
Greeley,  who  in  these  days  denounced  him  without  stint,2 
wrote  truly  after  his  death  that,  if  Douglas  had  been  a  hard 
student,  "it  would  have  been  difficult  to  set  limits  to  his 
power." 8  He,  like  his  greater  Illinois  rival,  was  a  good  math- 
ematician,4 but  he  did  not,  like  Lincoln,  wrestle  in  manhood 
with  the  problems  of  Euclid  for  mental  discipline.6  He 
hardly  knew  any  history  but  that  of  his  own  country;  he 
cared  not  to  learn  of  the  development  of  the  world,  except 
when  Alexander,  Caesar,  and  Napoleon  were  on  the  stage 
of  action,  and  of  them  he  could  not  read  too  much.6 

Of  all  the  descriptions  of  Douglas  at  this  time,  none  seem 
to  seize  the  essential  characteristics  of  the  man  so  well  as 
that  of  a  journalist  whose  soul  was  wrapped  up  in  the  anti- 
slavery  cause.  The  writer  was  impressed  with  his  "  pluck, 
persistency,  and  muscular  self-assurance  and  self-assertion." 
To  see  and  hear  him  was  to  "comprehend  the  aptness  of 
that  title  of  <  Little  Giant.' "  Never  was  a  characteristic 
name  better  applied.  The  historian  must  sympathize  with 
the  regret  expressed  by  this  journalist  that  one  who 
championed  bad  measures  with  such  indomitable  ability 
was  not  upon  the  right  side ;  and  one  cannot  but  reflect 
"of  what  infinite  value  this  remarkable  man  might  have 


1  8. 8.  Cox,  Eulogy,  July,  1861. 

f  "  We  presume  that  three  more  tricky  and  managing  politicians  don't 
live  than  Pierce,  Gushing,  and  Soule.  Jf  we  were  to  add  a  fourth,  we 
•hould  of  course  name  S.  A.  Douglas."— New  York  Tribune,  May  13th, 
1854 ;  evidently  written  by  Greeley. 

*  Recollections  of  a  Busy  Life,  p.  358. 

*  See  Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  viii.  p.  206. 

*  Herndon's  Life  of  Lincoln,  p.  308. 

*  Atlantic  Monthly,  vol.  viii  p.  206 ;  Forney's  Anecdotes  of  Public  Men, 


OH.V.]  CHARACTER  OF  DOUGLAS  493 

been  to  the  cause  of  liberty  if  the  fortune  of  politics  had 
made  him  a  leader  of  it."  1 

Douglas  had  the  quality  of  attaching  men  to  him;  he 
was  especially  fond  of  young  men,  and  they  repaid  his  com- 
plaisance by  devotion.  No  American  statesman  but  Clay 
ever  had  such  a  personal  following.  He  now  became  the 
leader  of  the  Democratic  party ;  he  retained  the  leadership 
of  the  Northern  Democrats  to  the  last ;  and  since  Andrew 
Jackson,  no  man  has  possessed  the  influence,  received  the 
confidence,  or  had  the  support  that  it  was  the  lot  of  Doug- 
las to  enjoy  from  the  Democrats  in  the  northern  half  of  the 
Union.  From  1854  to  1858,  he  was  the  centre  of  the  polit- 
ical history  of  the  country ;  from  1858  to  1860,  he  was  the 
best-known  man  in  the  United  States ;  but  after  the  contest, 
with  Lincoln  in  1858,  it  became  apparent  that  the  "  Little 
Giant "  had  met  his  match  in  that  other  son  of  Illinois. 

Douglas  was  generous  and  faithful  to  his  friends.  He 
had  large  ideas  in  business;  he  made  money  easily  and 
spent  it  lavishly.  It  was  stated  during  this  controversy  that 
he  was  furthering  the  interests  of  slavery  because  he  was  him- 
self a  slave-holder,  but  the  allegation  was  untrue.  Douglas 
had,  indeed,  been  offered  a  plantation  with  a  large  number 
of  slaves  by  his  father-in-law,  but  he  had  declined  the  gift 
because  he  was  unwilling  to  accept  such  a  responsibility. 
He  answered  this  charge  in  the  Senate  with  dignity.2  In- 
deed, those  who  sought  a  mercenary  motive  as  a  key  to  the 
course  of  Douglas  strangely  misapprehended  his  character.3 


1  Reminiscences  of  a  Journalist,  C.  T.  Congdon,  p.  286. 

*  Life  of  Douglas,  Sheahan,  p.  437. 

*  My  authorities  for  the  view  of  Douglas  are,  besides  those  I  have 
named,  the  two  biographies  of  him  by  Sheahan  and  Flint;  Constitutional 
and  Party  Questions,  J.  M.  Cutts;  Representative  Men,  Savage;  Forney's 
Anecdotes  of  Public  Men;  Elaine's  Eulogy  on  Garfield.     I  have  received 
valuable  hints  concerning  him  from  Senator  John  Sherman,  General 
Logan,  and  my  friend  Mr.  George  H.  Stone ;   but  for  his  personal  char- 
acteristics more  than  to  any  other  source  I  am  indebted  to  my  father  and 
mother,  who  were  intimately  acquainted  with  him  and  very  often  saw 


494  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1854 

In  comprehensive  views  he  was  a  true  representative  of 
the  West.  No  public  man  has  ever  had  more  of  the  spirit 
of  the  boundless  prairie  or  has  been  such  a  faithful  type  of 
the  resistless  energy  that  characterizes  the  city  of  Chicago. 
He  understood  the  West,  but  it  is  plain  that  he  had  not 
thought  out  the  results  of  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Com- 
promise,, for  he  seemed  to  have  little  apprehension  of  the 
political  revolution  that  was  destined  to  take  place  in  his 
beloved  section  of  country.1  On  January  1st,  1854,  Indiana, 
Illinois,  Michigan,  Wisconsin,  and  Iowa  were  Democratic 
States ; 3  all  their  senators  were  Democrats ;  of  twenty-nine 
representatives  only  five  were  Whigs.  None  but  Indiana 
remained  reliably  Democratic.  Michigan,  Wisconsin,  and 
Iowa  at  once  became  Republican,  and  Illinois  would  have 
immediately  ranged  herself  at  their  side  had  it  not  been  for 
the  strong  personal  influence  of  Douglas. 

Some  writers  and  many  men  who  were  contemporary 
with  the  event  have  maintained  that  the  civil  war  would 
not  have  taken  place  had  it  not  been  for  the  abrogation  of 
the  Missouri  Compromise.  This  will  probably  not  be  the 
mature  verdict  of  history.  The  more  the  subject  is  studied, 
the  more  profound  will  appear  the  prophetic  saying  of  John 
Quincy  Adams :  "  I  am  satisfied  slavery  will  not  go  down 
until  it  goes  down  in  blood."3  Yet  it  must  be  adjudged 
that  Douglas  hastened  the  struggle;  he  precipitated  the 
civil  war. 

The  North  was  now  in  a  ferment.  At  the  Connecticut 
State  election  in  April  the  Democrats  had  failed  to  elect 


him  familiarly.  Having  seen  him  frequently  when  a  child,  my  own  rec- 
ollection of  his  personal  appearance  and  manner  of  speaking  from  the 
stump  is  vivid. 

1  See  his  speech,  May  35th,  1854 

3  Minnesota  was  not  a  State.  "  What  gain  had  freedom  in  the  admis- 
sion of  Iowa  into  the  Union  ?  Are  Alabama  and  Mississippi  more  de- 
voted to  the  despotic  ideas  of  American  panslavism  than  are  Indiana  and 
Illinois  ?"— New  York  Tribune,  March  29th,  1854. 

8  Life  of  Seward,  vol.  i.  p.  672.     This  remark  was  made  in  1843. 


CH.  V.]  NORTHERN  SENTIMENT  495 

the  legislature  or  governor.  While  both  Whig  and  Demo- 
cratic conventions  had  protested  against  the  repeal  of  the 
Missouri  Compromise,1  the  result  of  the  election  was  ob- 
viously a  rebuke  to  the  dominant  party  for  their  support  of 
the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill.  The  newly  elected  legislature 
passed  resolutions  averse  to  the  proposed  measure;  these 
were  presented  to  the  House  the  day  on  which  the  con- 
cluding vote  was  taken,  and  to  the  Senate  before  its  final 
action  on  the  bill.  The  Whig  convention  of  Pennsylvania 
resolved  against  the  disturbance  of  the  legislation  of  1820. 
while  the  Democratic  convention  of  that  State  was  silent.a 

One  phase  of  the  public  sentiment  has  been  barely  alluded 
to.  The  foreign  immigration  had  become  a  factor  in  poli- 
tics of  which  heed  must  be  taken.  The  Germans  and  Irish, 
for  the  most  part,  had  joined  the  Democratic  party ;  but  the 
Germans,  from  the  first,  were  opposed  to  the  repeal  of  the 
Missouri  Compromise,  for  they  were  against  the  extension  of 
slavery.3  Of  eighty-eight  German  newspapers,  eight  were 
in  favor  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  while  eighty  were  de- 
cidedly opposed  to  it.4  This  change  was  of  enough  conse- 
quence to  determine  the  political  character  of  Wisconsin 
and  Iowa,  and  was  a  great  element  of  anti-slavery  strength 
in  Ohio. 

The  cannon  roared  in  Washington  when  the  Senate  en- 
acted the  measure,  but  gloom  overspread  the  minds  of  North- 
ern men.  Pierce  and  Douglas,  said  Greeley,  have  made 
more  abolitionists  in  three  months  than  Garrison  and  Phil- 
lips could  have  made  in  half  a  century.5  Crowds  of  people 


1  National  Intelligencer,  March  2d.  *  Ibid,  March  18th. 

*  See  New  York  Evening  Post,  Feb.  4th  and  7th ;  the  Liberator,  April 
21st;  National  Intelligencer,  April  15th. 

4  List  made  by  Cincinnati  Gazette,  cited  by  Von  Hoist,  vol.  iv.  p.  429. 
See  Von  Hoist's  remarks  on  this  subject  in  his  history ;  also  his  criticism 
of  Bryce's  American  Commonwealth.    See  The  Nation,  April  24th,  1890, 
which  refers  to  an  article  in  the  Hi&torische  Zeitschrift,  neue  Folge,  vol. 
xxviii.  pp.  1-50. 

5  New  York  Tribune,  May  17th. 


496  PDSRCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1854 

who  had  heretofore  severely  criticised  Garrison,  Phillips, 
Parker,  and  their  methods,  now  flocked  to  hear  them,  and 
were  glad  to  listen  to  the  arguments  of  these  earnest  men.1 
It  was  at  once  urged  by  the  press  and  from  the  platform 
that  an  effort  should  be  made  to  have  Kansas  enter  the 
Union  as  a  free  State,  and  a  systematic  movement  was  be- 
gun with  this  end  in  view. 

The  author  of  the  bill  was  regarded  with  execration ;  his 
middle  name  was  Arnold,  and  this  suggested  a  comparison 
to  Benedict  Arnold.  The  term  which  is  used  in  every 
Christian  land  as  a  synonym  of  traitor  was  likewise  applied 
to  him,  and  one  hundred  and  three  ladies  of  an  Ohio  vilJage 
sent  him  thirty  pieces  of  silver.1  He  could  travel,  as  he 
afterwards  said,  "  from  Boston  to  Chicago  by  the  light  of 
his  own  effigies."  Horace  Bushnell,  a  noted  preacher  in 
Hartford,  applied  to  Douglas  the  bitter  prophecy  of  the 
Hebrew  prophet :  "  Tidings  out  of  the  east  and  out  of  the 
north  shall  trouble  him ;  therefore  he  shall  go  forth  with 
great  fury  to  destroy  and  utterly  to  make  away  many,  yet 
he  shall  come  to  his  end,  and  none  shall  help  him."  A  jour- 
nal which  had  opposed  the  Kansas-Nebraska  measure  with 
pertinacity  asked,  in  derision,  "Who  names  Douglas  for 
the  next  President  now?"8  Not  a  response  came  from  the 
North. 

"Never  was  an  act  of  Congress  so  generally  and  so 
unanimously  hailed  with  delight  at  the  South"  as  was  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  act,  wrote  Alexander  Stephens  six  years 
after  its  passage.4  This  may  be  accepted  as  a  fact,  although 
there  were  some  exceptions  to  the  almost  universal  acclaim. 
Many  people  in  New  Orleans  did  not  like  it ;  such,  also,  ap- 


«  Life  of  Garrison,  vol.  iii.  pp.  407, 408 ;  New  York  Tribune.  See  Bell's 
speech  in  the  Senate,  Congressional  Globe,  Appendix,  vol.  xxix.  p.  943. 

f  The  Liberator,  vol.  xxiv.  p.  43. 

»  New  York  Times,  May  23d. 

*  Life  of  Alex.  H.  Stephens,  Johnston  and  Browne,  p.  360,  letter  of 
May  9th,  1860. 


OH.  V.]  SOUTHERN  SENTIMENT  497 

peared  to  be  the  feeling  in  Texas.1  Indifference  as  to  the 
fate  of  the  bill  while  it  was  pending  was  reported  from 
Charleston,  from  other  parts  of  South  Carolina,  and  from  a 
city  of  Mississippi.3  The  leading  state-rights  organ  of 
Charleston  did  not  scruple  to  condemn  the  tactics  of  Ste- 
phens as  a  violation  of  the  rights  of  the  minority  and  as  of 
a  dangerous  tendency.'  But  as  the  measure  gradually  came 
to  be  understood  as  a  victory  for  slavery  and  a  defeat  of  the 
abolitionists,  the  general  feeling  fully  justified  the  assertion 
of  Stephens.  It  was  thought  in  the  border  States  that  if  a 
new  slave  State  could  be  created  it  would  add  five  per  cent, 
to  the  value  of  slaves,  which  was  already  very  high.4  The 
planters  in  the  cotton  States,  being  buyers  of  negroes,  did  not 
regard  the  rise  of  values  as  an  unmixed  good ;  but  they  did 
not  grumble :  they  cast  about  for  a  remedy,  and  did  not  look 
for  it  long.  The  reopening  of  the  African  slave-trade  be- 
gan to  be  discussed  seriously  in  South  Carolina  and  Missis- 
sippi.* 

There  were  Southern  members  of  Congress  whom  Atchi- 
son  could  not  convince  that  Kansas  would  enter  the  Union 
as  a  slave  State.*  But  they  felt  that  if  Atchison  were  too 


1  See  the  New  Orleans  Crescent.  Gen.  Houston  says :  "  The  people  of 
the  South  care  nothing  for  it;  it  is  the  worst  thing  for  the  South  that  has 
ever  transpired  since  the  Union  was  first  formed." — Washington  corre- 
spondence New  York  Tribune,  June  5th. 

*  See  Charleston  News,  cited  in  National  Intelligencer,  May  25th  and 
27th ;  Charleston  Mercury,  June  21st,  cited  in  National  Intelligencer,  June 
27th ;  see  private  letter  from  Beaufort,  S.  C.,  to  New  York  Courier  and 
Enquirer,  dated  May  15th ;  letter  from  Natchez,  Miss.,  to  the  National 
Intelligencer,  cited  by  Courier  and  Enquirer,  May  31st.     There  was  a 
strong  feeling  against  the  measure  in  Eastern  Tennessee,  see  letter  from 
Knoxville,  ibid. 

*  Charleston  Mercury,  cited  in  New  York  Tribune,  May  31st. 

4  See  letter  of  Yeoman,  New  York  Times,  May  13th.  For  the  high  price 
of  slaves  see  Mobile  Advertiser,  cited  in  New  York  Evening  Post,  Jan.  30th. 

•  New  York  Tribune,  May  31st ;  see  Pike,  First  Blows  of  the  Civil  War, 
cited  by  Von  Hoist,  vol.  iv.  p.  437. 

•  See  Congressional  Globe,  Appendix,  vol.  xxix.  p.  939. 

L— 32 


498  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1854 

sanguine,  and  even  if  the  Kansas-Nebraska  act  did  not  rec- 
ognize the  Calhoun  dogma,  it  did  at  any  rate  make  a  quie- 
tus of  the  Wilmot  proviso  doctrine.  As  the  establishment 
of  a  principle  it  was  of  great  benefit  to  the  South ;  for  when 
the  bill  was  introduced  negotiations  were  in  progress  which 
were  expected  to  result  in  the  accession  of  an  important 
piece  of  territory  from  Mexico.  That  Cuba  would  be  ours 
by  the  close  of  the  year  was  not  deemed  an  unwarranted 
expectation.  Nor  was  it  a  wild  dream  to  expect  that  be- 
fore many  years  the  United  States  would  extend  to  the 
isthmus.  The  acquisition  of  Mexico,  Central  America,  and 
Cuba,  to  be  cut  up  into  slave  States,  was  an  object  worth 
striving  for,  and  the  Kansas-Nebraska  act  seemed  to  assert 
a  principle  that  could  properly  be  applied  if  this  territory 
were  gained  to  achieve  such  a  consummation.  The  better 
the  measure  was  understood,  the  more  complete  seemed  the 
humiliation  of  the  North,  and  the  greater  reason  there  ap- 
peared for  the  exultation  of  the  South. 

"  The  Fugitive  law  did  much  to  unglue  the  eyes  of  men, 
and  now  the  Nebraska  bill  leaves  us  staring,"  said  Emerson.1 
The  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  emphasized  every 
argument  against  the  Fugitive  Slave  act,  and  gave  to  the 
story  of  "  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin  "  the  force  of  solid  reasoning. 
The  uprising  against  this  law  of  1850  is  a  well-known  fact 
of  the  decade  between  1850-60,  but  the  distinction  between 
the  excitement  which  followed  its  passage  and  that  which 
grew  out  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  act  is  not  always  care- 
fully borne  in  mind.  Yet  the  difference  is  of  transcendent 
importance.  The  excitement  of  1850  and  1851  was  transi- 
tory. It  was  vehement  while  it  lasted,  for  the  abolitionists 
and  extreme  anti-slavery  men  prompted  it,  but  all  their  ag- 
itation did  not  prevent  the  public  mind  from  settling  into 
the  conviction  that  the  Fugitive  Slave  law  was  only  one  un- 
palatable article  of  a  good  contract.  Public  opinion  at  the 
North  in  1852  was  well  expressed  by  the  Democratic  and 


1  New  York  Evening  Post,  March  8th. 


CH.V.]  THE  FUGITIVE  SLAVE  LAW  499 

Whig  platforms.1  Even  the  brilliant  speech  of  Sumner  on 
the  subject2  did  not  produce  a  ripple  of  excitement,  and  in 
1853  the  acquiescence  was  complete.  When  the  Fugitive 
Slave  law  was  enforced  it  was  done  quietly,  with  sometimes 
a  lack  of  zeal 3  on  the  part  of  the  officers,  and  with  little  or 
no  resistance  from  the  people.  It  seemed  to  be  one  of  those 
laws  which  a  law-abiding  community  believe  wrong  to  re- 
sist, though  inexpedient  to  put  in  force. 

But  in  1854  there  began  to  be  a  smarting  sense  of  the  in- 
justice of  the  Fugitive  Slave  law,  which  was  never  allayed 
until  there  was  no  longer  reason  for  its  existence.  We 
shall  see,  in  the  course  of  this  work,  that  one  political  party 
made,  in  its  political  platforms,  obedience  to  this  act  a  test 
of  fidelity,  and  that  the  other  remained  silent  on  the  sub- 
ject ;  we  shall  see  that  Lincoln,  on  first  taking  the  oath  of 
his  high  office,  virtually  announced  his  purpose  of  enforcing 
it.  Yet,  after  the  passage  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  act,  the 
majority  of  men  at  the  North,  and  by  far  the  greater  num- 
ber of  intelligent  and  moral  people,  felt  that  they  had  been 
cheated,  and  that  the  Fugitive  Slave  law  was  a  part  of  the 
cheat.  They  reasoned  that  the  South  set  aside  the  Missouri 
Compromise  because  it  no  longer  operated  in  their  favor ; 
and  as  the  Fugitive  act  was  to  them  the  obnoxious  part  of 
the  compromise  of  1850,  they  would  consider  the  breach  of 
it  more  honorable  than  the  observance. 

In  March  a  colored  man  had  been  claimed  as  a  fugitive 
slave  and  committed  to  jail  at  Milwaukee,  Wis.  He  was 
rescued  by  a  party  of  sympathizers.  Booth,  a  journalist, 
who  was  one  of  these,  was  arrested  on  a  warrant  of  the 
United  States  commissioner;  he  applied  to  an  associate 
justice  of  the  State  Supreme  Court  for  a  writ  of  habeas 
corpus  and  his  discharge.  The  justice  ordered  his  discharge 
on  two  grounds,  one  of  which  was  that  the  Fugitive  Slave 
law  was  unconstitutional.  This  decision  was  afterwards 


1  See  pp.  249,  253.  2  See  p.  266. 

•  See  the  Richmond  Whig,  Jan.  19th,  1854. 


500  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1854 

affirmed  by  a  full  bench  of  the  Wisconsin  Supreme  Court, 
only  one  justice  dissenting.1 

"If  the  Nebraska  bill  should  be  passed,  the  Fugitive 
Slave  law  is  a  dead  letter  throughout  New  England,"  wrote 
a  Southerner  in  Boston  to  a  friend.3  "As  easily,"  he  con- 
tinued, "could  a  law  prohibiting  the  eating  of  codfish 
and  pumpkin-pies  be  enforced  as  that  law  be  executed." 
The  events  which  followed  hard  upon  the  action  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  showed  that  the  stranger  had  ac- 
curately judged  the  drift  of  opinion. 

On  the  evening  of  the  24th  of  May,  Anthony  Burns,  a 
negro  who  had  escaped  from  servitude  about  three  months 
previously,  was  arrested  in  the  heart  of  Boston.  The  next 
morning  he  was  taken  manacled  to  the  United  States  Court- 
room for  examination  by  Commissioner  Loring.  The  news 
of  his  arrest  had  not  got  into  the  papers,  and  the  proceed- 
ings would  have  been  summary  had  not  Kichard  H.  Dana, 
Jr.,  a  prominent  lawyer  of  anti-slavery  opinions,  chanced  to 
pass  the  court-house  at  about  nine  o'clock  and  receive  an 
intimation  of  what  was  going  on.  He  entered  the  court- 
room and  offered  Burns  his  professional  services.  The  ne- 
gro declined  them.  "  It  is  of  no  use,"  he  said ;  "  they  will 
swear  to  me  and  get  me  back ;  and  if  they  do,  I  shall  fare 
worse  if  I  resist." 3  Meanwhile,  Theodore  Parker  and  other 
gentlemen  who  had  accidentally  heard  of  the  arrest  had 
entered  the  court-room,  and  Parker  had  a  conference  with 
Burns.  He  told  the  frightened  fugitive  that  he  was  a  min- 
ister, that  by  a  meeting  of  citizens  he  had  been  appointed 
the  special  pastor  of  fugitive  slaves,  and  he  asked  whether 
Burns  did  not  want  counsel.  The  negro  replied :  "I  shall 


1  3  Wisconsin  Reports,  edited  by  Abram  D.  Smith,  pp.  1-144.  The  case 
was  carried  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  and  the  decision 
of  the  Wisconsin  Supreme  Court  reversed.  Chief-Justice  Taney  gave  the 
decision.  See  21  Howard,  p.  506. 

8  Letter  dated  Feb.  18th,  National  Intelligencer,  Feb.  28th. 

•  R.  H.  Dana's  Diary,  Life  by  C.  F.  Adams,  vol.  i.  p.  265. 


CH.V.]  THE  BURNS  CASE  501 

have  to  go  back.  My  master  knows  me.  His  agent  knows 
me.  If  I  must  go  back,  I  want  to  go  back  as  easily  as  I 
can."  "But  surely,"  rejoined  Parker,  "it  can  do  you  no 
harm  to  make  a  defence."  "  Well,"  said  Burns,  "  you  may 
do  as  you  have  a  mind  to  about  it."  "  He  seemed,"  Parker 
afterwards  related,  "  to  be  stupefied  with  fear." 

The  news  of  the  arrest,  and  the  circumstances  connected 
with  it,  spread  quickly  through  the  city  and  found  a  great 
change  in  public  opinion  from  that  which  had  prevailed 
three  years  before,  when  Sims  was  arrested.1  The  fugitive 
had  now  the  active  or  passive  sympathy  of  nearly  every 
one.  Inflammatory  handbills  were  circulated;  they  were 
drawn  up  with  skill,  appealing  at  the  same  time  to  the  fiery 
abolitionist  and  to  the  compromiser  of  1850.  Invectives 
against  kidnappers  and  man-stealing  were  joined  to  a  state- 
ment which  expressed  the  overpowering  thought  in  the 
minds  of  New  England  men.  "  The  compromises,"  one  of 
the  placards  said,  "  trampled  upon  by  the  slave  power  when 
in  the  path  of  slavery,  are  to  be  crammed  down  the  throat 
of  the  North." 3  On  Friday  morning,  the  26th,  a  call  for  a 
meeting  at  Faneuil  Hall  that  evening  was  issued,  the  object 
of  which  was  stated  to  be :  "  To  secure  justice  for  a  man 
claimed  as  a  slave  by  a  Virginia  kidnapper ;"  and  the  notice 
ended :  "  Shall  he  be  plunged  into  the  hell  of  Virginia  slav- 
ery by  a  Massachusetts  judge  of  probate?"8  By  Friday 
evening  the  city  was  in  a  ferment.  Not  since  the  massacre 
in  revolutionary  days  had  there  been  such  wild  excitement. 
Agitators  were  running  to  and  fro,  setting  all  the  city  in 
an  uproar.  The  pent-up  feeling  produced  by  the  repeal 
of  the  Missouri  Compromise  broke  forth  with  fury.  The 
crowd  that  gathered  in  Faneuil  Hall  were  agitated  by  pas- 


1  See  p.  211 ;  also  Life  of  R.  H.  Dana,  C.  F.  Adams,  vol.  i.  pp.  269,  285, 
286.  For  a  similar  change  in  Iowa,  see  Life  of  Grimes,  Salter,  p.  73. 

*  A  copy  of  these  placards  may  be  found  in  Life  and  Correspondence 
of  Theo.  Parker,  Weiss,  vol.  ii.  p.  132. 

a  Loring  was  judge  of  probate  as  well  as  United  States  commissioner. 


502  PIERCE'S   ADMINISTRATION  [1854 

sion ;  and  when  "Wendell  Phillips  rose  to  speak,  they  were 
in  that  state  which  orators  delight  to  see  when  they  wrould 
urge  their  fellow-men  to  violent  deeds.  Phillips  had  the 
manner  of  Brutus,  but  his  words  were  like  those  of  Mark 
Antony,  fitted  to  stir  up  mutiny.  "  See  to  it,"  he  said, 
"  that  to-morrow,  in  the  streets  of  Boston,  you  ratify  the 
verdict  of  Faneuil  Hall,  that  Anthony  Burns  has  no  master 
but  his  God.  .  .  .  Will  you  adhere  to  the  case  of  Sims  and 
see  this  man  carried  down  State  Street  between  two  hun- 
dred men?  .  .  .  Nebraska,  I  call  knocking  a  man  down, 
and  this  is  spitting  in  his  face  after  he  is  down."  Thus 
Phillips  went  on,  the  audience  hanging  breathless  on  his 
every  word. 

When  he  had  finished,  Theodore  Parker  delivered  a  wild, 
incoherent,  and  vindictive  harangue.  "  Men  and  brothers," 
Parker  said,  "  I  am  an  old  man ;  I  have  heard  hurrahs  and 
cheers  for  liberty  many  times ;  I  have  not  seen  a  great 
many  deeds  done  for  liberty.  I  ask  you  are  we  to  have  deeds 
as  well  as  words  ?  .  .  .  Gentlemen,  there  was  a  Boston  once, 
and  you  and  I  had  fathers — brave  fathers;  and  mothers 
who  stirred  up  fathers  to  manly  deeds.  .  .  .  They  did  not 
obey  the  stamp-act.  .  .  .  You  know  what  they  did  with 
the  tea."  He  ended  with  the  proposition  that  when  they 
adjourned  it  should  be  to  meet  the  next  morning  at  nine 
o'clock  in  Court-house  Square.  "  To-night,"  shouted  a  hun- 
dred voices  in  reply.  The  excitement  was  now  intense. 
The  people  were  in  a  tumult.  Above  the  roar  of  voices 
might  be  heard  cries,  "  To  the  court-house !" '  "  To  the  Re- 
vere House  for  the  slave-catchers!"  Parker  tried  in  vain 
to  still  the  storm  he  had  raised,  but  he  could  not  get  a  hear- 
ing. Phillips  then  ascended  the  platform  and  a  few  well- 
chosen  words  sufficed  to  allay  the  tumult.  He  had  almost 
persuaded  the  audience  to  disperse  quietly,  when  a  man  at 
the  entrance  of  the  hall  shouted :  "  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  just 


1  The  United  States  leased  a  portion  of  the  court-house.     Burns  was 
imprisoned  in  the  jury-room  of  the  United  States  Court. 


CM.V.]  THE  BURNS  CASE  503 

informed  that  a  mob  of  negroes  is  in  Court  Square  attempt- 
ing to  rescue  Burns.  I  move  that  we  adjourn  to  Court 
Square."  The  hall  became  quickly  empty.  The  crowd 
rushed  to  the  scene  of  action.  There  they  found  a  small 
party  under  the  lead  of  Thomas  W.  Higginson  attempting 
to  break  down  one  of  the  doors  of  the  court-house  with  a 
large  stick  of  timber  used  as  a  battering-ram.  The  Faneuil 
Hall  men  lent  a  hand.  Those  who  could  not  work  rent  the 
air  with  shouts ;  others  hurled  stones  or  fired  pistol-shots  at 
the  court-house  windows.  It  was  an  angry,  excited  crowd 
of  two  thousand,  bent  on  the  rescue  of  Burns.1  At  last  a 
breach  was  made  in  the  door,  but  the  place  was  defended. 
In  the  melee  one  of  the  marshal's  posse  was  killed,  and 
Higginson  was  wounded  by  a  sabre-cut.  Several  of  Hig- 
ginson's  companions  were  arrested,  after  which  no  further 
attempt  was  made  to  break  into  the  court-house.  Two 
companies  of  artillery  were  immediately  ordered  out  by  the 
mayor  to  preserve  the  peace. 

This  attempt  at  the  rescue  of  Burns  was  foolish.  Under 
a  government  like  ours  there  can  be  no  justification  for  an 
attack  upon  the  constituted  authorities.  It  pleased  the  mul- 
titude to  call  the  Boston  Court-house  the  Bastille ;  but  the 
recollection  of  the  event  which  was  thus  conjured  up  im- 
presses one  with  the  contrast  between  the  Paris  of  1789  and 
the  Boston  of  1854,  and  not  with  their  likeness.  Yet  it  is 
an  evidence  of  the  deep  feeling  that,  although  this  attempt 
was  widely  condemned,  it  did  not  weaken  the  public  sympa- 
thy for  the  fugitive  nor  the  indignation  against  the  United 
States  functionaries.  This  attack  enabled  the  marshal  to 
appear  as  a  vindicator  of  the  law ;  he  immediately  called  out 
two  companies  of  United  States  troops,  reported  his  action 
to  the  President,  and  received  the  reply :  "  Your  conduct  is 
approved.  The  law  must  be  executed." 

On  the  following  Monday  the  examination  began.  An 
eye-witness  relates  that  "  the  court-house  had  the  air  of  a 


1  A.  Bronson  Alcott  was  in  the  mob.— The  Nation,  March  8, 1888. 


504  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1854 

beleaguered  fortress."1  Every  window  was  guarded  by 
Massachusetts  or  United  States  soldiery.  Only  one  door  of 
the  court-house  was  open,  and  at  that  was  stationed  a  strong 
force  of  city  police.  None  but  functionaries  could  enter 
without  a  permit  from  the  marshal.  The  counsel  for  the 
fugitive  made  a  strong  defence.  Burns  was  undeniably  the 
slave  of  the  claimant,  although  the  proofs  were  clumsy,  and 
on  technical  grounds  he  might  have  been  set  free.  The 
United  States  officers,  however,  were  determined  to  win. 
On  the  2d  of  June,  Commissioner  Loring  adjudged  the  ne- 
gro to  his  owner. 

The  most  instructive  act  in  the  whole  drama  was  now  to 
be  played.  The  fugitive  slave  must  be  sent  out  of  Boston. 
The  city  was  full  of  people ;  during  the  whole  week  men 
from  the  suburban  towns  and  from  all  parts  of  Massachu- 
setts had  been  flocking  into  Boston.  The  President  had 
just  signed  the  Kansas-Nebraska  act.  There  was  earnest 
indignation  against  Congress,  the  President,  and  the  United 
States  authorities  of  Boston ;  but  these  Massachusetts  men 
were,  for  the  most  part,  on  a  peaceful  errand  bent.  The 
United  States  district  attorney,  the  marshal,  and  the  mayor 
of  the  city  were  determined,  however,  to  be  prepared  for  a 
mob  and  an  attempt  at  rescue.  A  large  body  of  city  police 
and  twenty-two  companies  of  Massachusetts  soldiers  guard- 
ed in  detachments  the  streets  through  which  Burns  and  his 
guard  must  pass.  The  streets  were  cleared  by  a  company 
of  cavalry.  The  procession  was  made  up  of  one  United 
States  artillery  battalion,  one  platoon  of  United  States 
marines,  the  marshal's  civil  posse  of  one  hundred  and 
twenty-five  men  guarding  the  fugitive,  two  platoons  of  ma- 
rines, a  field-piece,  and  one  platoon  of  marines  as  a  guard 
to  the  field-piece.  Windows  along  the  line  of  march  were 
draped  in  mourning ;  from  a  window  opposite  the  old  State- 
house  was  suspended  a  black  coffin  on  which  were  the 
words,  "  The  funeral  of  liberty ;"  further  on  was  an  Amer- 


1  Anthony  Burns,  Stevens,  p.  80. 


CaV.]  THE  BURNS  CASE  505 

lean  flag,  the  union  down,  draped  in  mourning.  The  sol- 
emn procession  was  witnessed  by  fifty  thousand  people,  who 
hissed,  groaned,  and  cried  "  Shame !  shame !"  as  it  went  by. 
A  weight  of  suspense  hung  over  the  crowd,  and  it  seemed 
as  if  a  slight  occasion  might  precipitate  an  outbreak  with 
terrible  consequences.  The  fugitive  was  marched  to  the 
wharf,  and  was  soon  on  a  United  States  revenue-cutter,  sail- 
ing towards  Virginia.1 

To  this  complexion  had  it  come  at  last.    In  a  community 


1  About  fourteen  thousand  dollars  were  paid  out  of  the  United  States 
Treasury  for  services  rendered  by  the  Massachusetts  militia.  Anthony 
Burns,  Stevens,  p.  133.  The  cost  of  returning  Burns  to  the  federal 
government  was  not  far  from  forty  thousand  dollars.  New  York  Times, 
June  9th.  Henry  A.  Wise  said  it  cost  the  government  a  hundred  thou- 
sand dollars.  Speech  at  Alexandria,  Feb.,  1855. 

My  chief  authority  in  this  account  is  Anthony  Burns,  a  History,  by  C. 
E.  Stevens,  published  in  1856.  The  writer  states  in  his  preface :  "  My  ma- 
terials have  been  derived  chiefly  from  original  sources.  ...  I  was  pres- 
ent at  the  Faneuil  Hall  meeting  from  its  commencement  to  its  close,  and 
I  witnessed  the  attack  on  the  court-house."  I  have  also  used  the  Life  of 
R.  H.  Dana,  by  C.  F.  Adams ;  the  Life  of  Theodore  Parker,  by  Weiss ;  and 
I  have  carefully  read  the  contemporary  accounts  in  the  Boston  Journal, 
the  Liberator,  and  the  Boston  Courier.  The  latter  was  a  very  conserva- 
tive Whig  newspaper.  The  sequel  of  this  affair  is  interesting.  Burnsv 
after  undergoing  persecution  and  hardship  in  Virginia,  was  sold  to  go  to- 
North  Carolina,  was  ransomed  in  1855  by  money  collected  by  a  Boston 
colored  preacher ;  was  sent  to  Oberlin  College ;  afterwards  became  the 
pastor  of  a  colored  society  at  St.  Catherines,  Canada,  and  died  in  1862. 
"  Burns  was  the  last  fugitive  slave  ever  seized  on  the  soil  of  Massachu- 
setts."— Life  of  R.  H.  Dana,  C.  F.  Adams,  vol.  i.  p.  265.  Indictments  were 
found  against  Parker,  Phillips,  Higgi^3on,  and  others.  A  test  case  was 
made  of  one,  and  Judge  Curtis  quashed  the  indictment.  Rise  and  Fall 
of  the  Slave  Power,  Wilson,  vol.  ii.  p.  443. 

Loring  had  previously  been  appointed  lecturer  to  the  law-school  of 
Harvard  University,  but  the  board  of  overseers  refused  to  confirm  the  ap- 
pointment. The  legislature  sent  an  address  to  the  governor  requesting 
him  to  remove  Loring  from  the  position  of  probate  judge ;  this  the  gov- 
ernor declined  to  do.  The  agitation  against  Loring  was,  however,  kept 
up,  and  when  Banks  became  governor  in  1858  he  made  the  removal  of 
the  probate  judge  on  an  address  from  the  legislature. 


606  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1864 

celebrated  all  over  the  world  for  the  respect  it  yielded  to 
law,  and  for  obedience  to  those  clothed  with  authority ;  in 
a  community  where  the  readiness  of  all  citizens  to  assist  the 
authorities  had  struck  intelligent  Europeans  with  amaze- 
ment— it  now  required  to  execute  a  law  a  large  body  of 
deputy  marshals,  the  whole  force  of  the  city  police,  eleven 
hundred  and  forty  soldiers  with  muskets  loaded,  supplied 
with  eleven  rounds  of  powder  and  ball  and  furnished  with  a 
cannon  loaded  with  grape-shot.  If  anything  were  needed 
to  heighten  the'  strangeness  of  the  situation,  it  may  be 
found  in  the  fact  that  the  marshal's  deputies  were  taken 
from  the  dregs  of  society,  for  no  reputable  citizen  would 
serve  as  a  slave-catcher. 

As  the  men  of  Boston  and  the  men  of  New  England  re- 
flected on  what  had  taken  place,  they  were  persuaded,  as 
they  had  never  been  before,  that  something  was  rotten  in 
the  United  States,  and  that  these  events  boded  some  strange 
eruption  to  our  State.1  Nor  was  the  significance  of  the 
transaction  entirely  lost  upon  the  South.  "  We  rejoice  at 
the  recapture  of  Burns,"  said  a  fiery  organ  of  the  slavery 
propaganda,  "  but  a  few  more  such  victories  and  the  South 
is  undone."  *  

1  "  The  tables  under  the  Fugitive  Slave  law  are  beginning  at  last  to 
turn  against  the  law  and  in  favor  of  humanity.  There  is  deep  and  pain- 
ful suspense  here." — Seward  to  his  wife  from  Washington,  May  28th. 
Life  of  Seward,  vol.  ii.  p.  230. 

*  Richmond  Enquirer,  cited  in  the  Independent,  June  8th, 


CHAPTER   VI 
PIERCE'S   ADMINISTRATION 

MABCY  might  have  pleaded  the  engrossing  affairs  of  his 
department  as  a  reason  for  not  giving  his  attention  to  the 
domestic  question  which  was  agitating  the  country.  In  truth, 
he  was  actively  employed  during  the  year  1854;  and  few 
American  Secretaries  of  State,  in  a  time  of  peace,  have  had 
more  real  business  to  transact  than  fell  to  his  lot. 

Soon  after  assuming  charge  of  the  department,  he  showed 
that  he  wished  to  impress  his  plain  democratic  ideas  upon 
those  who  represented  this  country  abroad.  Almost  the 
first  question  which  he  took  up  was  that  of  diplomatic  cos- 
tume. From  the  time  of  our  mission  to  Ghent  until  Presi- 
dent Jackson's  day,  the  dress  informally  or  officially  recom- 
mended was :  "  A  blue  coat,  lined  with  white  silk ;  straight 
standing  cape  embroidered  with  gold;  buttons  plain,  or, 
if  they  can  be  had,  with  the  artillerist's  eagle  stamped  upon 
them  ;  cuffs  embroidered  in  the  manner  of  the  cape.  White 
cassimere  breeches,  gold  knee-buckles ;  white  silk  stockings, 
and  gold  or  gilt  shoe-buckles.  A  three-cornered  chapeau- 
bras ;  a  black  cockade  to  which  an  eagle  has  been  attached. 
Sword,  etc.,  corresponding."  On  gala-days,  the  uniforms 


508  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1853 

should  be  more  splendid  with  embroidery,  and  the  hat  deco- 
rated with  a  white  ostrich  feather. 

Under  the  strictly  democratic  administration  of  Jackson, 
the  President  recommended  some  changes  in  the  diplomatic 
dress  in  the  line  of  cheapness  and  adaptation  to  the  simplicity 
of  our  institutions.  It  was  suggested  that  the  blue  coat  be 
changed  to  black,  the  cape  omitted,  and  a  gold  star  affixed 
on  each  side  of  the  collar  of  the  coat ;  the  breeches  might 
be  black  or  white.  The  chapeau-bras  with  the  cockade  and 
eagle  and  the  sword  were  retained. 

Thus  the  matter  remained  until  Marcy  took  it  up.  He 
issued  a  circular  on  June  1st,  1853,  in  which  he  recommended 
to  our  representatives  abroad  that,  in  order  to  show  their 
devotion  to  republican  institutions,  they  should,  whenever 
practicable,  appear  in  the  simple  dress  of  an  American 
citizen.  He  stated  that  the  example  of  Dr.  Franklin  was 
worthy  of  imitation,  and  regretted  that  there  ever  had 
been  a  departure  from  that  simple  and  unostentatious 
course. 

Our  minister  at  Berne  was  glad  to  inform  the  Secretary 
that  the  "  absurd  and  expensive  uniform  "  necessary  to  be 
worn  at  a  royal  court  was  never  required  in  the  ancient  re- 
public of  Switzerland.1  The  ministers  at  Turin  and  Brussels 
reported  that  there  probably  would  be  no  difficulty  in  carry- 
ing out  the  instructions  of  the  department.3  Our  represen- 
tative at  Berlin  received  an  intimation  from  the  president 
minister  that  the  king  would  consider  an  appearance  before 
him  without  costume  as  disrespectful.  He  therefore  did  not 
deem  it  discreet  to  insist  upon  this  point,  but  in  yielding  to 
the  wishes  of  the  monarch  he  was  careful  to  procure  "  a 
very  plain  and  simple  dress." s  The  King  of  Sweden  was 
perfectly  willing  to  transact  business  with  the  American 
minister  in  citizen's  clothes,  but  on  social  occasions  the  court 


1  Fay  to  Marcy,  June  30th,  1853. 

2  Seibels  to  Marcy,  Sept.  30th,  1853 ;  Daniel  to  Marcy,  Oct.  10th,  1853. 


Vroom  to  Marcy,  Oct.  31st,  1853. 


CH.VL]  DIPLOMATIC   COSTUME  609 

dress  was  imperatively  required.  The  minister  explained  to 
Marcy  that  the  king  was  a  rigid  conservative  in  all  the 
antique  ceremonies  and  exactions  of  his  court,  that  the 
Swedish  society  held  fast  to  aristocratic  symbols,  and  his  ap- 
pearance at  court  in  plain  clothes  would  be  looked  upon  as 
an  endeavor  to  propagate  republican  principles.1 

August  Belmont,  who  was  at  The  Hague,  received  permis- 
sion from  the  king  to  appear  at  the  audience  in  citizen's 
dress.  Although  it  had  been  hinted  that  it  would  be  more 
satisfactory  if  he  wore  uniform,  he  had  replied  that  he  must 
follow  the  wishes  and  instructions  of  his  government.  He 
went  therefore  to  the  audience  in  plain  black  clothes.  In 
his  despatch  he  described  his  appearance  as  singular,  for  the 
king,  his  aides-de-camp,  and  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs, 
the  only  persons  who  assisted  at  the  ceremony,  were  in  full 
uniform  and  covered  with  stars  and  decorations.  Belmont 
was  more  anxious  about  the  presentation  to  the  queen 
mother,  for  at  her  court  ceremony  was  a  weightier  matter 
than  at  that  of  the  king.  His  brother  diplomats,  who  had 
wondered  at  his  previous  temerity,  were  concerned  about 
the  result,  for  they  knew  that  she  had  often  resented  with 
rudeness  any  infringement  of  etiquette.  The  presentation, 
however,  took  place  without  incident;2  and  after  several 
months'  residence  in  Holland,  Belmont  could  report  that  he 
and  his  family  had  been  treated  by  the  royal  family  on 
every  occasion  with  the  utmost  courtesy.  Indeed,  at  a  casino 
ball  the  queen  paid  him  honor  above  any  of  the  diplomats 
present  by  asking  him  to  dance  a  quadrille ;  and  at  a  court 
ball  the  king  shook  him  most  cordially  by  the  hand  and 
entered  into  an  interesting  and  animated  conversation  with 
him  of  more  than  half  an  hour.8 

Sanford,  the  secretary  of  legation,  who  was  representing 
this  country  at  Paris  until  the  arrival  of  Mason,  determined, 


1  Schroeder  to  Marcy,  Nov.  24th,  1853. 

»  Belmont  to  Marcy,  Nov.  8th  and  25th,  1853. 

•  Ibid.,  Feb.  28th,  1854. 


510  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1863 

after  much  consideration,  to  act  in  accordance  with  the  spirit 
of  the  instructions  of  the  State  department.  Fearing  that 
his  change  of  dress  might  be  misconstrued,  he  made  known 
his  desire  to  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  who  promised  to 
make  the  subject  understood  at  court.  Sanf ord  accordingly 
appeared  at  the  reception  to  the  diplomatic  corps,  at  a  din- 
ner of  the  foreign  minister,  and  at  a  soiree  at  the  Tuileries 
in  citizen's  dress.1  When  Mason  arrived  at  Paris,  the  first 
question  upon  which  he  brought  his  mind  to  bear  was  that 
of  a  proper  costume.  He  had  earnestly  hoped  that  nothing 
would  occur  to  cause  him  to  deviate  from  the  simple  dress 
of  an  American  citizen ;  but  he  soon  perceived  that  it  would 
not  do  to  follow  the  example  of  Sanford.  In  the  latter  of 
two  interviews  with  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  the 
emperor's  wishes  were  most  politely  conveyed  to  him. 
Nothing  was  specifically  required,  but  suggestions  were 
made  to  which,  from  a  proper  respect  to  the  French  govern- 
ment, he  deemed  it  imperatively  necessary  to  conform.  He 
appeared  before  the  emperor  to  present  his  credentials  in 
a  suit  of  plain  black  clothes,  but  at  the  first  ball  at  the  Tui- 
leries which  he  attended,  and  on  all  subsequent  court  occa- 
sions, he  wore,  as  he  described  it,  "  a  simple  uniform  dress." 
Sanford  was  so  disgusted  with  the  action  of  his  chief  that 
he  resigned  the  position  of  secretary  of  legation.  He  said 
that  Mason  adopted  "  a  coat  embroidered  with  gilt  tinsel,  a 
sword  and  cocked  hat,  the  invention  of  a  Dutch  tailor  in 
Paris,  borrowed  chiefly  from  the  livery  of  a  subordinate 
attache"  of  legation  of  one  of  the  petty  powers  of  the  Con- 
tinent. Mortified  and  indignant  at  this  course,"  Sanford 
wrote,  "  I  declined  attending  with  him  the  ball  at  which 
he  first  figured  in  this  toggery."*  A  letter  from  the  Sec- 
retary of  State  to  Sanford  approving  his  conduct  was  a 
salve  to  his  wounded  feelings ; 8  and  his  satisfaction  was 


1  Sanford  to  Marcy,  Aug.  18th,  1853. 

3  Letter  of  Mr.  Sanford  to  Secretary  of  State  Cass,  Jan.  19th,  1860. 

1  Mr.  Marcy  to  Mr.  Sanford,  Feb.  18th,  1854. 


CH.  VI. j  DIPLOMATIC   COSTUME  611 

complete  when  he  read  a  private  letter  from  Marcy  to 
Mason,  severely  animadverting  upon  Mason's  return  to  a 
monarchical  dress,  when  the  plain  black  clothes  "  had  been 
almost  universally  commended  by  public  opinion  in  the 
United  States."  J 

But  nowhere  did  the  circular  of  the  State  department 
create  so  much  trouble  as  at  the  court  of  St.  James.  After 
considerable  reflection,  Buchanan  had  determined  to  wear 
neither  gold  lace  nor  embroidery  at  court,  yet  he  desired 
to  show  a  proper  respect  to  the  queen,  for  whom  he  had 
a  most  sincere  regard.  It  had  been  suggested  to  him  that 
he  might  assume  the  civil  dress  worn  by  General  "Washing- 
ton. He  therefore  carefully  examined  Stuart's  portrait,  but 
came  to  the  conclusion  that  fashions  had  so  changed  that 
such  a  costume  would  appear  ridiculous.  The  question 
was  still  unsettled  when  Parliament  opened  in  February, 
1854.  Two  days  before  the  meeting,  he  received  a  printed 
circular  from  the  master  of  ceremonies,  which  stated,  "  No 
one  can  be  admitted  into  the  diplomatic  tribune,  or  in  the 
body  of  the  House,  but  in  full  court  dress."  In  consequence 
of  this,  he  did  not  attend.  Buchanan's  absence  from  the 
House  of  Lords,  at  the  opening  of  Parliament,  "  produced 
quite  a  sensation."  "  Indeed,"  he  wrote, "  I  have  found  diffi- 
culty in  preventing  this  incident  from  becoming  a  subject  of 
inquiry  and  remark  in  the  House  of  Commons." a  "When  all 
England  was  excited  by  the  prospect  of  war  with  Russia,  it 
seems  curious  that  this  affair  should  have  attracted  so  much 
attention ;  yet  it  was  the  occasion  of  official  consideration, 
court  gossip,  and  newspaper  controversy.  The  Times,  in 
describing  the  brilliant  and  imposing  proceedings  in  the 
House  of  Lords,  had  stated  that,  amidst  the  blaze  of  stars, 
crosses,  and  ribands  in  'the  diplomatic  box,  the  American 
minister,  in  evening  dress,  sate  "  unpleasantly  conscious  of 


1  Mr.  Sanford  to  Mr.  Cass,  Jan.  19th,  1860. 
*  Buchanan  to  Marcy,  London,  Feb.  7th,  1854. 


612  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1854 

his  singularity." l  This  account  was  speedily  corrected,  but 
the  affair  gave  rise  to  a  spirited  discussion  in  the  journals. 
One  newspaper  said  that  the  exclusion  of  Buchanan  from 
the  ceremony  would  be  considered  in  the  United  States  "  as 
a  studied  slight  or  determined  insult."2  On  the  other  hand, 
an  influential  journal  said  that  the  absurd  quarrel  was  en- 
tirely due  to  "  General  Pierce' s  republican  ill-manners  "  and 
to  "American  puppyism,"  to  which  nothing  should  be  con- 
ceded. "There  is  not  the  least  reason,"  continued  this 
journal,  "  why  her  Majesty  .  .t.  should  be  troubled  to  re- 
ceive the  *  gentleman  in  the  black  coat '  from  Yankee-land. 
He  can  say  his  say  at  the  Foreign  Office,  dine  at  a  chop- 
house  in  King  Street,  sleep  at  the  old  Hummums,  and  be 
off  as  he  came,  per  liner,  when  his  business  is  done."  * 

Three  weeks  after  the  opening  of  Parliament,  however, 
Buchanan  had  the  pleasure  of  writing  to  Marcy :  "  The 
question  of  court  costume  has  been  finally  settled  to  my 
entire  satisfaction.  I  appeared  at  the  queen's  levee,  on 
Wednesday  last,  in  the  very  dress  which  you  have  often 
seen  me  wear  at  the  President's  levees,  with  the  exception 
of  a  very  plain  black-handled  and  black-hilted  dress  sword, 
and  my  reception  was  all  that  I  could  have  desired.  ...  I 
have  never  felt  prouder,  as  a  citizen  of  my  country,  than 
when  I  stood  amidst  the  brilliant  circle  of  foreign  ministers 
and  other  court  dignitaries  in  the  simple  dress  of  an  Amer- 
ican citizen." 4  He  adopted  the  sword,  he  explained  to  his 
niece,  "  to  gratify  those  who  have  yielded  so  much,  and  to 
distinguish  me  from  the  upper  court  servants."  6 


1  London  Times,  Feb.  1st,  1854. 

*  London  Examiner,  quoted  in  the  London  Times,  Feb.  6th,  1854. 

1  London  Chronicle,  cited  by  New  York  Evening  Post,  April  8th,  1854. 

*  Buchanan  to  Marcy,  London,  Feb.  24th,  1854.     The  dress  was  black 
coat,  white  waistcoat  and  cravat,  and  black  pantaloons  and  dress  boots. 
Buchanan  to  Miss  Harriet  Lane,  Feb.  24th,  Life  of  Buchanan,  Curtis, 
vol.  ii.  p.  114.     The  despatches  quoted  may  be  found  in  voL  ix.  Senate 
Documents,  1st  Sess.  36th  Congress. 

'  Curtis,  vol.  ii.  p.  114. 


CH.  VI]  THE  GADSDEN  TREATY  613 

If  Marcy  had  foreseen  the  number  of  serious  questions 
that  would  come  before  him,  he  would  not  have  taken  upon 
himself  the  task  of  prescribing  the  cut  of  the  garments  for 
our  diplomatic  representatives.  Buchanan  expressed  the 
opinion  that  Marcy  had  much  to  learn ; '  but  by  1854  the 
steady  application  and  diligence  of  the  Secretary  of  State 
began  to  bear  fruit.  In  the  last  days  of  1853  a  treaty  was 
negotiated  with  Mexico ;  amendments  were  made  to  it  by 
the  Senate,  and  in  turn  agreed  to  by  the  Mexican  President. 
It  was  not,  however,  until  June  30th,  1854,  that  proper  leg- 
islation by  Congress  was  had  to  carry  the  provisions  of  the 
treaty  into  effect ;  and  only  on  that  day  were  the  ratifica- 
tions exchanged.  This  agreement  is  known  as  the  Gadsden 
treaty.  It  settled  the  question  of  a  disputed  boundary  with 
Mexico,  the  line  agreed  upon  between  the  two  countries  be- 
ing that  now  existing.3  The  United  States  gained  the  Me- 
silla  valley,  which  was  an  oblong  square  of  land  containing 
about  twenty  million  acres.  It  formed  the  southern  part  of 
what  is  now  New  Mexico  and  Arizona.  The  agreement  also 
abrogated  the  eleventh  article  of  the  treaty  of  Guadalupe 
Hidalgo,1  which  provided  that  the  United  States  should 
protect  Mexico  from  the  incursions  of  Indians.  This  had 
been  found  to  be  an  onerous  duty,  and  one  almost  impos- 
sible of  execution.  For  these  considerations  the  United 
States  paid  ten  millions  of  dollars.  This  district  was  now 
much  better  known  than  in  1848.  No  one  pretended  that 
fertile  or  valuable  land  had  been  acquired,  but  the  friends 
of  the  administration  urged  that  this  valley  was  a  very 
desirable  and  an  almost  necessary  route  for  the  projected 
Southern  Pacific  railroad.4 


1  In  May,  1853,  Curtis,  vol.  ii.  p.  81.  •  In  1890. 

»  The  treaty  of  peace  of  1848  which  ended  the  Mexican  War. 

*  See  Treaties  and  Conventions,  Haswell ;  also  debate  in  the  House 
of  Representatives  on  the  appropriation  necessary  to  carry  out  the  treaty. 
The  vote  in  the  House  was  103  to  62 ;  in  the  Senate,  on  the  appropriation, 
34  to  6. 


514  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1864 

In  June,  a  treaty  settling  the  fishery  question  and  provid- 
ing for  reciprocity  between  the  United  States  and  Canada 
was  concluded  between  Marcy  and  Lord  Elgin,  Governor- 
General  of  Canada,  who  acted  for  Great  Britain.  It  allowed 
United  States  fishermen  to  take  sea-fish  in  the  bays,  harbors, 
and  creeks  of  Canada,  New  Brunswick,  Nova  Scotia,  Prince 
Edward  Island,  and  of  the  several  islands  thereunto  adjacent. 
This  was  a  concession  to  our  country,  for  by  the  treaty  of 
1818,  which  was  then  in  force,  United  States  fishermen  were 
not  allowed  to  take  fish  within  three  marine  miles  of  these 
coasts.  The  advantage  to  Canada  was  in  a  provision  that 
certain  articles,  the  growth  and  produce  of  each  country, 
should  be  admitted  into  the  other  free  of  duty.1  The 
treaty  was  to  remain  in  force  ten  years,  and  thereafter 
until  either  country  should  give  notice  of  the  wish  to 
terminate  the  agreement,  but  it  should  be  binding  for 
twelve  months  after  such  notice  was  given.9  This  was 
a  valuable  treaty  for  Canada,  and  a  desirable  one  for  the 
United  States ;  but  the  manner  in  which  a  majority  of  the 
Senate  was  obtained  for  its  ratification,  if  the  story  told  by 
Lord  Elgin's  secretary  be  exact,  is  neither  creditable  to  Lord 
Elgin  nor  to  the  senators  whose  support  he  gained  by  wily 

1  Among  the  articles  which  were  thus  admitted  were :  Grain,  flour,  and 
breadstuff's  of  all  kinds;  fish  of  all  kinds;  poultry,  eggs ;  hides,  furs,  skins 
or  tails,  undressed ;  butter,  cheese,  tallow ;  ores  of  metals  of  all  kinds;  coal, 
timber  and  lumber  of  all  kinds ;  fish-oil,  rice,  broom-corn  and  bark ;  flax, 
hemp  and  tow,  unmanufactured;  unmanufactured  tobacco.  A' complete 
list  may  be  found  in  Treaties  and  Conventions,  Haswell,  p.  451 ;  also  in 
Elaine's  Twenty  Years  of  Congress,  vol.  ii.  p.  621,  where  the  treaty  is  dis- 
cussed. In  mildly  criticising  this  treaty,  the  New  York  Tribune,  weekly 
of  June  17th,  nevertheless  declared  that  it  was  in  favor  of  absolute  free 
trade  between  British  America  and  the  United  States. 

f  The  ratifications  were  exchanged  Sept.  9th,  1854.  The  treaty  was 
terminated  March  17th,  1866,  on  notice  given  one  year  previously  by  the 
United  States.  See  Treaties  and  Conventions,  Haswell ;  Elaine's  Twenty 
Years  of  Congress. 

In  July  the  treaty  was  ratified  which  had  been  made  by  Commodore 
Perry  with  Japan.  The  principal  feature  of  the  treaty  was  the  opening 
of  several  important  Japanese  ports  to  American  vessels.  See  Treaties 
and  Conventions,  p.  597. 


CH.VI.]       THE  BOMBARDMENT  OF  SAN  JUAN  515 

social  influences ;  it  has  been  known  as  the  treaty  "  floated 
through  on  champagne." ' 

In  July,  an  affair  occurred  in  Central  America  which  cre- 
ated some  excitement  at  the  North.  The  port  of  San  Juan 
had  been  occupied  by  about  three  hundred  adventurers,  main- 
ly negroes  from  Jamaica,  who  had  caused  great  annoyance  to 
an  American  settlement  on  the  other  side  of  the  river.  This 
settlement  had  been  established  by  the  Nicaragua  Transit 
Company,  an  association  of  citizens  of  the  United  States, 
whose  purpose  was  to  open  a  transit-way  across  the  Isth- 
mus of  Central  America.  The  San  Juan  (or  Greytown)9 
people  had  committed  depredations  on  the  property  of 
the  citizens  of  Punta  Arenas,  as  the  United  States  settle- 
ment was  called.  The  trouble  was  still  further  complicated 
by  the  attempt  of  a  body  of  men  crossing  over  from 
Greytown  to  arrest  the  captain  of  one  of  the  Transit  Com- 
pany's boats  on  a  charge  of  murder.  The  American  minister 
to  Central  America,  Borland,  happening  to  be  there,  effectu- 
ally protected  the  captain,  for  he  believed  in  the  innocence 
of  the  accused,  and,  moreover,  totally  denied  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  intruding  party.  Afterwards,  when  Borland  was  in 
Greytown,  he  was  subjected  to  insult  by  those  presumably 
having  authority.  On  receiving  official  accounts  of  these  oc- 
currences, the  President  sent  the  sloop-of-war  Cyane  to  the 
harbor  of  San  Juan  to  enforce  the  demands  of  this  govern- 
ment. A  claim  for  twenty-four  thousand  dollars  for  injury 
to  property  was  made,  an  apology  was  demanded  for  the  in- 
dignity offered  to  the  United  States  minister,  and  assurances 
of  better  behavior  in  the  future  were  required.  No  reply 


1  See  Life  of  Laurence  Oliphant,  vol.  i.  p.  109  et  seq. ;  Episodes  in  a 
Life  of  Adventure,  Oliphant,  p.  38  et  seq.  Oliphant's  description  of  the 
Washington  of  1854  is  noteworthy :  "  Washington,  '  the  city  of  magnifi- 
cent distances,'  struck  me  as  a  howling  wilderness  of  deserted  streets 
running  out  into  the  country,  and  ending  nowhere,  its  population  con- 
sisting chiefly  of  politicians  and  negroes." 

8  This  population  gave  their  town  the  name  of  Greytown. 


516  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1864 

being  received,  the  commander  of  the  Cyane,  after  giving 
due  notice  of  twenty-four  hours,  opened  bombardment  on 
Greytown.  He  ceased  firing  twice,  in  order  to  give  an  op- 
portunity of  complying  with  the  demands  which  had  been 
made ;  but  at  length,  as  nothing  was  heard  from  the  author- 
ities, he  continued  the  bombardment  until  the  town  was  laid 
in  ashes.  No  lives  were  lost,  and  the  buildings  destroyed 
were  of  little  value.  An  English  war-vessel  was  in  the  har- 
bor, and  its  captain  protested  against  the  attack.  "This 
transaction,"  the  President  stated  in  his  message  to  Con- 
gress, "  has  been  the  subject  of  complaint  on  the  part  of 
some  foreign  powers,  and  has  been  characterized  with  more 
of  harshness  than  of  justice." ' 

But  all  foreign  affairs  were  unimportant  compared  to  the 
diplomatic  intercourse  with  Spain,  if  this  be  estimated  by 
the  attention  it  received  from  the  Secretary  of  State,  the 
excitement  it  caused  in  this  country,  and  the  interest  it  oc- 
casioned abroad.  The  desire  to  obtain  Cuba  soon  began  to 
affect  Marcy,  and  he  indulged  in  the  dream  that  through 
his  agency  the  island  might  be  peaceably  and  honorably 
acquired,  though  in  the  instructions  to  Soule  he  urged  cau- 
tion on  his  impetuous  agent.  At  the  beginning  he  went 
over  the  usual  platitudes:  it  is  difficult  for  Spam  to  retain 
Cuba,  she  cannot  keep  it  long  unaided,  and  the  United 
States  has  a  deep  interest  in  its  destiny  after  it  shall  cease 
to  be  a  dependency  of  Spain.  We  should  resist  its  transfer- 
ence to  any  European  nation,  and  we  should  see  with  regret 
any  power  of  Europe  help  Spain  to  keep  her  dominion  over 
Cuba.  Then  coming  to  the  actual  matter,  Soule  could  un- 
derstand that  we  would  be  willing  to  purchase  the  island, 
but  he  was  not  authorized  to  make  any  offer  for  it,  since 
there  is  now  no  hope  that  such  a  proposition  will  be  favor- 


1  For  a  full  account  of  this  affair,  see  the  President's  message  of  Dec. 
4th,  1854,  and  the  original  documents  submitted  to  Congress  in  August 
The  subject  is  discussed  in  Wharton's  International  Law  Digest,  sec. 
224. 


CH.VL]  THE  DESIRE  TO  OBTAIN  CUBA  517 

ably  entertained.  Indeed,  it  is  believed  that  Spain  is  under 
obligations  to  England  and  France  not  to  transfer  Cuba  to 
the  United  States.  It  will  be  of  great  value  if  the  minister 
can  ascertain  at  Madrid  what  is  the  exact  arrangement  be- 
tween the  three  powers,  and  especially  whether  Great  Brit- 
ain and  France  are  urging  Spain  to  take  steps  towards  the 
emancipation  of  the  slaves  in  Cuba.  The  opinion  was  ex- 
pressed that  if  Cuba  became  a  republic,  and  there  was  a  vol- 
untary separation  from  the  mother  country,  it  would  prob- 
ably relieve  us  from  further  anxiety,  and  the  United  States 
would  be  willing  to  contribute  money  towards  the  accom- 
plishment of  such  a  desirable  object.1 

Buchanan  was  also  instructed  to  watch  the  conduct  of 
Great  Britain,  and  to  ascertain  whether  she  was  urging 
Spain  to  emancipate  the  negroes  in  Cuba  and  to  import 
more  Africans  as  free  men  into  the  island.2 

Soule  had  settled  the  question  of  his  dress  in  literal  ac- 
cordance with  the  circular  of  his  chief.  He  adopted  the 
costume  of  Benjamin  Franklin  at  the  court  of  Louis  XYI. 
The  black-velvet  clothes,  richly  embroidered,  the  black  stock- 
ings, a  black  chapeau,  and  a  black  dress  sword,  set  off  his 
black  eyes,  black  locks,  and  pale  complexion,  and  gave  him 
a  striking  appearance.  He  looked,  indeed,  not  like  the  phi- 
losopher whose  costume  he  imitated,  but  rather  like  the  mas- 
ter of  Ravenswood.3  Contrary  to  general  anticipation,  he 
was  received  in  Madrid  by  the  queen  "  with  marked  atten- 
tion and  courtesy." 4  He  had,  however,  good  reason  to  be- 
lieve that  his  rejection  had  been  urged  upon  the  Spanish 
cabinet  by  the  French  ambassador,  by  the  Countess  of  Mon- 
tijo,  the  mother  of  the  Empress  Eugenie  of  France  and  of 
the  Duchess  of  Alba,  and  by  the  Austrian  and  Mexican 
ministers. 


1  Marcy  to  Soule,  July  23d,  1853. 

*  Marcy  to  Buchanan,  July  3d,  1853. 

*  Memories  of  Many  Men,  Field,  p.  86. 

4  Soule  to  Marcy,  Oct.  25th,  1853 ;  see  vol.  i.  pp.  394, 395. 


518  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1853 

Soon  after  his  presentation  at  court,  an  affair  occurred 
which  gave  his  family  an  unpleasant  notoriety  in  every 
capital  of  Europe.  A  ball  was  given  by  the  Marquis  de 
Turgot,  the  ambassador  of  France,  in  honor  of  the  Empress 
Eugenie's  fete-day,  and  to  this  ball  all  the  members  of  the 
diplomatic  corps  were  invited.  Madame  Soule  made  a  strik- 
ing appearance.  She  had  a  beautiful  head  and  expressive 
face,  and  her  fine  person  was  adorned  by  a  rich  and  tasteful 
dress,  cut  low,  designed  by  the  artist  of  the  mode  at  Paris. 
The  Countess  of  Monti  jo,  since  her  daughter  had  become 
empress,  not  only  led  society  in  Madrid,  but  mingled  in 
state  affairs  with  such  apparent  authority  that  she  was 
often  presumed  to  be  the  real  representative  of  France. 
She  needed  only  to  make  a  remark  to  have  it  at  once  echoed. 
She  criticised  severely  the  toilet  of  Madame  Soule,  and  the 
Marquis  de  Turgot  joined  in  the  criticism.  The  Duke  of 
Alba,  brother-in-law  of  Napoleon  III.,  translated  the  trifling 
words  into  an  insulting  comparison,  saying  as  Madame  Soule 
was  passing, "  Look  at  Marguerite  de  Bourgogne."  The  dis- 
solute wife  of  Louis  X.  was  then  in  every  one's  mind,  owing 
to  the  reappearance  of  Mademoiselle  Georges  on  the  Paris 
stage  in  Dumas's  "  La  Tour  de  Nesle,"who  revived  the  mem- 
ory of  the  sensation  she  once  had  made  by  her  art  and  sen- 
suous beauty  in  the  impersonation  of  Marguerite.  Nelville 
Soule  chanced  to  hear  the  remark  about  his  mother,  and,  ap- 
proaching the  duke  in  a  menacing  manner,  applied  to  him 
the  epithet  of  canaille.  The  next  morning  young  Soule 
sent  to  the  duke  a  demand  for  an  apology.  This  was  read- 
ily given,  for  the  duke  in  his  words  had  referred  entirely  to 
the  physical  likeness  between  Madame  Soule  and  Mademoi- 
selle Georges.  The  lady's  character  was  above  reproach, 
and  there  was  not  intended  the  most  distant  comparison  to 
the  beautiful  and  wanton  Marguerite.  But  this  did  not  end 
the  matter.  The  duke  was  taunted  by  the  proud  Castilian 
grandees  with  having  been  forced  to  eat  his  words  by  a 
beardless  boy.  Certain  reports  of  the  affair  which  appeared 
in  Galignantis  Messenger  and  the  London  journals  gave  the 


CH.V!.]  SOULE'S  DIFFICULTY  619 

duke  an  opportunity  to  demand  of  Nelville  Soule  that  he 
should  disavow  those  statements.  This  Soule  declined  to 
do,  maintaining  that  the  printed  accounts  were  correct. 
The  duke  then  sent  a  challenge.  Both  were  experienced 
swordsmen.  They  fought  for  thirty  minutes,  and  although 
neither  was  wounded,  the  seconds  declared  that  honor  did 
not  require  more ;  the  duel  ended  with  a  shaking  of  hands. 
But  the  hot  blood  of  Pierre  Soule  boiled  at  this  implied 
insult.  He  was  of  humble  origin,  and  had  been  forced  to 
leave  France  on  account  of  advanced  political  opinions. 
Turgot,  of  an  ancient  noble  family,  could  scarcely  endure  to 
meet  on  equal  diplomatic  footing  a  Frenchman  of  low  ex- 
traction, as  he  considered  the  American  minister,  and,  not 
content  with  secretly  urging  the  rejection  of  Soule  by  the 
court,  he  manifested  his  contempt  by  shrugs  of  the  shoul- 
ders and  by  petty  slights.  Soule  now  insisted  on  fighting 
Turgot,  on  the  ground  that  the  insult  had  taken  place  at  his 
house,  and  no  explanation  availed  to  placate  the  fiery  citizen 
of  New  Orleans.  A  duel  was  actually  forced  upon  Turgot. 
Pistols  were  the  weapons  chosen.  The  American  minister 
wanted  the  distance  ten  paces  or  und6r;  Lord  Howden, 
the  British  ambassador  and  second  of  Turgot,  said  that 
would  be  brutal  murder,  and  determined  that  the  distance 
should  be  forty  paces.  To  this  decision  Soule  was  obliged 
to  submit,  although  he  maintained  that  in  America  such  a 
duel  would  be  ridiculed  as  a  farce.  The  first  fire  was  with- 
out result ;  at  the  second,  the  ball  of  Soule's  pistol  lodged 
in  the  thigh  of  his  antagonist,  four  inches  above  the  knee. 
The  marquis  was  confined  to  his  bed  for  a  long  time,  and 
was  lamed  for  life.  A  reconciliation  between  the  two  gen- 
tlemen never  took  place.1 


1  My  authorities  for  this  account  are  a  letter  of  M.  Gaillardet,  dated 
Paris,  Dec.  22d,  1853,  to  the  Courrier  des  fitats-Unis,  cited  by  the  New 
York  Herald  and  New  York  Times  of  Jan.  llth,  1854;  letter  from  Ma- 
drid, Dec.  26th,  1853,  published  in  the  New  York  Tribune  of  Jan.  25th, 
1854 ;  Memories  of  Many  Men,  Field,  p.  80. 


520  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1858 

This  duel  occurred  December  17th,  1853.  Six  days  there- 
after Soule  wrote  an  important  despatch  to  his  chief.  Spain, 
he  said,  was  almost  in  a  condition  of  anarchy.  The  ministry 
had  no  longer  the  confidence  of  the  Cortes  and  the  Senate ; 
the  queen  had  suspended  the  sessions  of  the  legislature ;  the 
ministers  wanted  to  resign.  The  most  astounding  rumors 
were  in  circulation  about  the  palace.  The  king  had  been 
advised,  when  the  expected  royal  child  should  be  born,  to 
protest  against  its  legitimacy  and  inaugurate  a  movement 
which  should  expel  the  queen  from  the  throne.1  She  was 
extremely  unpopular.  The  most  shocking  stories  were  cur- 
rent regarding  the  "  innocent  Isabella,"  as  she  had  been 
called  in  her  youth.  The  best  people  avoided  her.  The 
lower  classes  only  spoke  of  her  with  sneers.  Anecdotes 
most  foul  were  told  of  her  orgies,  and  everybody  believed 
them.  Her  unbridled  passion,  it  was  said,  led  her  to  de- 
bauchery in  which  she  seemed  to  emulate  the  disorderly  ad- 
ventures of  Catherine  II.  of  Russia.3 

But  to  return  to  the  despatch  of  Soule.  He  reported  that 
in  the  midst  of  the  confusion  and  disorder,  it  was  difficult 
to  transact  any  business.  In  foreign  affairs,  Spain  did  not 
move  without  consulting  France  or  England.  The  influence 
of  France  was  at  present  the  more  powerful  of  the  two,  and 
she  was  as  much  opposed  to  our  acquisition  of  Cuba  as  was 
Great  Britain  ;  "  and  she  will  remain  our  enemy  as  long  as 
she  bends  her  neck  under  the  yoke  of  the  man  who  now 
holds  the  rod  over  her."  Soule  spoke  of  the  duplicity  of  the 
French  minister  of  foreign  affairs ;  of  his  own  delicate  posi- 
tion in  Madrid  on  account  of  the  uneasiness  which  his  pres- 
ence in  Europe  seemed  to  give  the  French  autocrat ;  of  the 
exceedingly  vain  and  overbearing  Turgot,  who  had  charge 
from  the  emperor  to  cut  short  Soule's  course  in  Spain  and 


1  Soule"  to  Marcy,  Dec.  23d,  1853. 

1  Madrid  correspondence  of  London  Times,  April  18th ;  Memories  of 
Many  Men,  Field,  p.  94. 


CH.VI.]  SOULE'S  POSITION  AT  MADRID  621 

nullify  what  influence  he  might  gain  with  the  court  or  the 
government.1 

After  the  receipt  of  this  despatch,  it  is  plain  that  the  Pres- 
ident and  Secretary  of  State  should  have  decided  upon  the 
transfer  of  Soule  to  some  other  diplomatic  post,  or,  if  there 
were  none  such  available,  that  an  honorable  place  should 
have  been  found  for  him  at  home.  Soule  was  an  accom- 
plished and  patriotic  gentleman  who  deserved  to  be  treated 
with  consideration ;  but,  on  his  own  showing,  he  could  no 
longer  be  of  service  to  this  government,  unless  it  were  desired 
to  goad  Spain  into  a  war.  The  sequel  proves  that  it  was 
most  unfortunate  for  the  reputation  of  our  government  that 
he  was  permitted  to  remain  at  Madrid.  He  embroiled  our 
relations  with  Spain  to  no  purpose,  trying  to  inaugurate 
a  system  of  diplomacy  which,  had  it  been  adopted,  would 
justly  have  incurred  for  us  the  reproach  of  the  civilized 
world. 

Soule's  very  difficult  position  was  made  more  difficult  as 
Calderon,  who  held  the  portfolio  of  foreign  affairs,  was  his 
personal  enemy.  The  two  had  quarrelled  at  Washington 
when  Calderon  was  the  Spanish  representative  to  this  coun- 
try.8 As  Soule  had  apparently  now  no  hope  of  accomplish- 
ing anything  with  the  cabinet,  he  set  to  work  to  ingratiate 
himself  with  the  queen  and  the  queen  dowager.  In  this 
he  succeeded,8  but  to  the  last  he  was  cordially  hated  by  the 
aristocracy  and  the  press. 

The  despatches  of  Soule  in  January  and  February,  1854, 
show  that  he  had  no  hope  of  being  able  to  further  the  inter- 
ests of  his  country  by  negotiation  so  long  as  Calderon 
should  remain  Secretary  of  State.  But  it  was  evident  that 
a  crisis  in  affairs  was  approaching,  and  he  gloated  on  the 
difficulties  which  beset  the  cabinet.  The  government,  not 
having  the  support  of  any  political  party,  only  maintained 


1  Soulg  to  Marcy,  Dec.  23d,  1853. 

»  New  York  Times,  May  10th,  1854. 

•  Memories  of  Many  Men,  Field,  p.  79 ;  SonlS  to  Marcy,  Jan.  20th,  1854. 


522  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1854 

itself  by  a  system  of  terror.  Citizens  who  had  run  counter 
to  the  whims  of  the  palace  were  sent  to  prison  or  exiled 
from  the  country.  The  press  was  closely  fettered  ;  the  treas- 
ury was  empty ;  the  Bank  of  San  Fernando  peremptorily 
declined  to  make  the  government  fresh  loans,  and  even  the 
usurers  of  Madrid  were  deaf  to  the  entreaties  of  the  court. 
The  queen  had  already  wasted  the  whole  of  her  income  for 
the  current  year.  Everywhere  was  distress;  food  had 
doubled  in  price,  and  the  poor  of  the  capital  were  fed  at  the 
public  charge.  The  queen  and  her  secret  counsellors  were 
plotting  for  an  absolute  monarchy ;  the  ministers,  though 
not  averse  to  the  scheme,  dared  not  move  in  it. 

This  condition  of  affairs  was  sure  to  redound  to  the  profit 
of  the  United  States,  for  it  invited  a  rebellion  in  Cuba.  It 
seemed  unlikely  that  this  event  would  be  deferred  later  than 
spring,  and  in  such  a  case  the  American  minister  at  Madrid 
ought  to  be  in  a  position  to  take  an  advantage  of  the  lucky 
chance  offered  him.  He  begged,  therefore,  for  specific  powers 
and  sufficient  instructions.1 

While  Soule  was  fretting  over  his  lack  of  authority  and 
fuming  at  his  uncomfortable  predicament,  the  Cuban  offi- 
cials played  into  his  hands  by  committing  an  outrage  on  the 
Black  Warrior,  an  American  merchant  steamer.  She  plied 
between  Mobile  and  New  York,  stopping  at  Havana  for 
passengers  and  mail.  She  had  made  thirt}r-six  such  voyages, 
almost  always  having  a  cargo  for  the  American  port,  and 
never  being  permitted  to  bring  freight  to  Havana.  The 
custom  of  her  agent  was  to  clear  her  "  in  ballast "  the  day 
before  her  arrival.  This  practice,  while  contrary  to  the  reg- 
ulations of  Cuban  ports,  had  always  been  winked  at  by  the 
authorities.  It  was  well  understood  that  the  Black  Warrior 
generally  had  a  cargo  on  board,  but  a  detailed  manifest  of 
her  load  had  never  been  required.  She  had  always  been 
permitted  to  sail  unmolested  until,  when  bound  from  Mobile 
to  New  York,  she  was  stopped  on  the  28th  of  February,  1854, 

1  Soulfe  to  Marcy.  Jan.  20th  and  Feb.  2*M 


CH.VL]  THE  "BLACK  WARRIOR"    AFFAIR  623 

by  order  of  the  royal  exchequer,  for  having  violated  the 
regulations  of  the  port.  The  agent,  finding  that  the  cause 
of  this  proceeding  was  the  failure  to  manifest  the  cargo  in 
transit,  offered  to  amend  the  manifest,  which  under  the  rules 
he  had  a  right  to  do ;  but  this  the  collector,  on  a  flimsy  pre- 
text, refused  to  permit.  The  agent  was  at  the  same  time 
informed  that  the  cargo  was  confiscated  and  the  captain 
fined,  in  pursuance  of  the  custom-house  regulations.  The 
cargo  was  cotton,  valued  at  one  hundred  thousand  dollars ; 
the  captain  was  fined  six  thousand  dollars.  The  United 
States  consul  applied  to  the  captain-general  for  redress,  but 
no  satisfaction  was  obtained.  A  gang  of  men  with  lighters 
were  sent  to  the  ship,  under  the  charge  of  the  comandante, 
who  ordered  the  captain  of  the  Black  Warrior  to  discharge 
her  cargo.  This  he  refused  to  do.  The  comandante  then 
had  the  hatches  opened,  and  his  men  began  to  take  out  the 
bales  of  cotton.  The  captain  hauled  down  his  flag  and 
abandoned  the  vessel  to  the  Spanish  authorities.1 

When  the  news  of  this  affair  reached  Washington,  it 
caused  excitement  there ;  but  the  North  was  too  greatly 
troubled  about  the  Kansas-Nebraska  act  to  respond  to  the 
feeling  in  official  circles.  The  President  sent  a  message  to 
the  House  of  Representatives,  stating  that  indemnity  for  the 
injury  to  our  citizens  had  been  demanded  from  Spain.  He 
suggested  that  Congress  should  strengthen  his  hands  by 
provisional  legislation  adapted  to  the  emergency,  promising 
that  if  the  negotiations  should  fail,  he  would  not  hesitate  to 
use  the  authority  and  means  which  Congress  might  grant, 
"  to  insure  the  observance  of  our  just  rights,  to  obtain  re- 
dress for  injuries  received,  and  to  vindicate  the  honor  of 
our  flag."  9 

The  day  after  the  news  was  received,  Marcy  sent  Soule 
documents  which  contained  a  history  of  the  transaction. 


1  See  the  documents  transmitted  to  the  House  of  Representatives  bj 
the  President,  March  15th. 
*  Message  of  the  President,  March  15th. 


524  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1854 

He  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  outrage  would  cause  deep 
indignation  throughout  the  country,  as  it  was  the  most 
flagrant  of  many  unredressed  wrongs  of  Cuba  to  this  coun- 
try.1 Six  days  later  the  President  and  cabinet  had  consid- 
ered the  matter  fully,  and  the  Secretary  of  State  was  able 
to  give  authoritative  instructions.  Soule  was  directed  to 
present  the  transaction  as  recounted  in  the  documents  ac- 
companying the  two  despatches,  and  to  demand  three  hun- 
dred thousand  dollars  as  indemnity  to  the  owners  of  the 
Black  Warrior?  The  President,  moreover,  hoped  that  her 
Catholic  Majesty  would  "visit  with  her  displeasure  the 
Cuban  officials  who  have  perpetrated  the  wrong."  "  Nei- 
ther the  views  of  this  government  nor  the  sentiments  of  the 
country,"  wrote  the  Secretary,  "  will  brook  any  evasion  or 
delay  on  the  part  of  her  Catholic  Majesty  in  a  case  of  such 
flagrant  wrong."  But  lest  Soule  might  urge  his  country's 
demands  with  too  great  persistence,  he  was  directed  simply 
to  present  the  strong  features  of  the  case  and  refrain  from 
the  discussion  of  it.  He  should  get  "  as  early  a  reply  as 
practicable"  to  his  demand.  With  this  despatch  was  sent 
a  special  messenger,  who  would  wait  a  reasonable  time  for 
the  answer  of  the  Spanish  government.1 

The  journey  from  Washington  to  Madrid  in  1854  took  a 
longer  time  than  is  now  required  to  go  from  Washington  to 
Yokohama.  The  messenger  could  travel  almost  all  of  the 
way  by  rail  from  Paris  to  Bayonne ;  but  thence  he  must 
proceed  by  diligence  or  by  the  Spanish  mail.  The  vehicles 
were  rickety,  the  roads  were  rough,  and  the  traveller  was 
seventy-six  hours  on  the  road.  In  the  winter  or  early  spring 
he  suffered  intensely  from  the  cold ;  he  was  almost  certain 
to  be  upset,  and  he  might  consider  himself  fortunate  if  he 
were  not  attacked  and  robbed  by  highwaymen.*  It  was  the 

1  Marcy  to  Soule,  March  llth. 

"  They  had  abandoned  the  vessel ;  one  hundred  thousand  dollars  was 
for  the  cargo,  two  hundred  thousand  dollars  for  the  vessel. 
'  Marcy  to  Soule,  March  17th. 
4  See  Field's  description  of  his  journey,  p.  77. 


CH.VL]  THE   "BLACK  WARRIOR"  AFFAIR  626 

7th  of  April  when  the  messenger  arrived  at  Madrid,  and  put 
the  last  despatch  of  the  Secretary  of  State  into  Soule's  hands. 
Three  days  previously  had  come  Marcy's  first  communica- 
tion in  regard  to  the  affair,  and  we  may  well  imagine  that 
Soule  thanked  his  stars  for  what  seemed  to  him  a  lucky 
event.  Here  was  a  chance  to  extricate  himself  from  the 
unpleasant  position  into  which  he  had  fallen  after  his  duel 
with  Turgot.  The  average  American  deemed  the  seizure  of 
the  Black  Warrior  a  moderate  wrong ;  to  Soule*  it  appeared 
a  gross  indignity.  His  eagerness  to  obtain  Cuba  colored 
every  thought  and  prompted  every  action.  He  believed  that 
the  man  who  should  be  instrumental  in  acquiring  the  island 
would  be  the  leader  of  the  Democratic  party,  and  while, 
being  foreign-born,  he  could  not  aspire  to  the  presidency, 
he  relished  the  idea  of  being  President-maker.1 

Soule  immediately  asked  Calderon  for  an  interview ;  when 
they  met  on  the  8th  of  April  he  gave  a  full  history  of  the 
transaction,  and  left  with  the  Spanish  minister  a  letter 
which  expressed  the  hope  of  the  President  that  her  Catholic 
Majesty  would  not  only  "make  prompt  reparation  to  the 
injured  citizens  of  the  United  States,  but  also  visit  with  her 
displeasure  the  Cuban  officials."8  Thus  far  Soule*  confined 
himself  to  his  instructions.  Three  days  went  by  without  a 
reply.  The  day  after  the  interview  was  Sunday,  which  was 
kept  with  great  solemnity  in  Spain,  and  Holy  "Week  began  on 
the  Monday.  Though  the  procrastination  of  Spanish  officials 
was  well  known,  the  hot  temper  of  the  American  minister 
would  not  take  into  account  the  holy  season  or  the  ingrained 
character  of  those  he  was  dealing  with.  On  April  llth,  he 
sent  a  sharp  letter  to  Calderon.  The  wrong,  he  said,  was 
"  of  a  highly  grievous  character,"  and  "  the  United  States 
cannot  brook  that  the  reparation  due  them  for  the  insult 
offered  to  their  flag  and  the  injury  done  to  the  property  of 
their  citizens  be  in  any  way  evaded  or  unnecessarily  delayed/' 
He  demanded  the  sum  of  three  hundred  thousand  dollars  as 


,  p.  98.  *  Scute  to  Calderon,  April  8th. 


626  PEERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  ^1854 

indemnity,  and  that  all  persons  concerned  in  the  perpetra- 
tion of  the  wrong  should  be  dismissed  from  her  Majesty's 
service.  He  asserted  that  if  these  demands  were  not  com- 
plied with  in  forty-eight  hours,  the  government  of  the  United 
States  would  consider  that  her  Majesty's  government  had 
determined  to  uphold  the  conduct  of  its  officers.1  The  sec- 
retary of  legation  who  carried  this  despatch  to  Calderon  in- 
dicated to  him,  by  pointing  to  the  clock,  that  it  was  now 
exactly  twelve,  and  that  in  precisely  two  days  at  the  self- 
same minute  an  answer  would  be  due. 

Calderon  had  already  written  a  reply  to  Soule"'s  first  note, 
but  did  not  send  it  until  after  he  had  received  the  letter  of 
belligerent  tone.  It  was  in  the  usual  Spanish  manner,  argu- 
ing for  delay  because  authentic  and  complete  information 
had  not  been  received.  The  feeble  Secretary  of  State  would 
also  have  avoided  a  direct  answer  to  the  second  note  of  the 
American  minister,  but  his  colleagues  agreed  on  a  reply,  and 
forced  him  to  sign  it.9  They,  in  turn,  were  undoubtedly 
braced  in  their  position  by  the  ambassadors  of  England 
and  France,  trained  diplomats,  who  shrewdly  surmised  that 
Soule"  had  exceeded  his  instructions,  and  would  not  be  sus- 
tained by  his  government.  The  reply  sent  on  April  12th 
was  couched  in  terms  of  haughty  dignity  that  recalled  the 
old  days  of  Spain,  when  it  was  her  custom  to  make  impe- 
rious demands,  not  to  hear  them. 

The  despatch  said  that,  considering  all  the  circumstances 
of  the  case,  the  government  had  replied  with  promptness. 
The  secretary  promised  that  when  full  information  was  re- 
ceived, the  affair  should  be  carefully  considered.  But  it  was 
unreasonable  to  expect  that  a  grave  and  definite  determina- 
tion would  be  arrived  at  when  only  one  side  of  the  case  had 
been  heard.  The  words  of  the  American  minister  called 


1  8oul6  to  Calderon,  April  llth. 

1  Madrid  correspondence  London  Times,  April  17th.  This  correspond- 
ent was  thoroughly  informed,  and  undoubtedly  had  his  information  from 
the  British  ambassador. 


CH.VL]  CALDERON'S  REPLY  527 

forth  a  reprimand.  The  peremptory  manner  of  exacting 
satisfaction,  he  wrote,  suggested  "a  suspicion  that  it  is  not 
so  much  the  manifestation  of  a  lively  interest  in  the  defence 
of  pretended  injuries  as  an  incomprehensible  pretext  for  ex- 
citing estrangement,  if  not  a  quarrel,  between  two  friendly 
powers."  But  the  Secretary  hoped  the  United  States  gov- 
ernment would  not  insist  upon  a  decision  until  the  expected 
information  arrived,  which  would  enable  her  Majesty's  gov- 
ernment to  determine  its  course  intelligently  and  justly.  He 
added :  "  If,  unfortunately,  it  should  not  be  so,  the  opinion 
of  the  civilized  world  will  decide  on  which  side  is  the  right." 
In  conclusion,  he  wished  to  impress  upon  the  mind  of  the 
American  minister  "  that  the  government  of  her  Majesty, 
jealous  also  of  its  decorum,  is  not  accustomed  to  the  harsh 
and  imperious  manner  with  which  this  matter  has  been 
expressed;  which,  furthermore,  is  not  the  most  adequate 
for  attaining  to  the  amicable  settlement  which  is  wished 
for."1 

The  spirit  of  the  proud  Castilian  spoke  in  this  despatch. 
It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  imperious  words  of  Soule  justi- 
fied this  dignified  reply  and  severe  reprimand.  It  has  a 
noble  ring  when  we  consider  it  the  answer  of  a  weak,  de- 
generate nation  to  a  strong,  energetic  people  ;  for  the  send- 
ers of  this  message  thought  that  they  had  thrown  down  the 
gauntlet  to  the  United  States,  and  they  expected  that  the 
next  communication  from  the  American  minister  would  be 
a  demand  for  his  passports.*  The  ministry  were  certain  of 
the  sympathy  of  England  and  France,  but,  in  the  event  of 
hostilities  with  the  United  States,  material  aid  from  these 
two  countries  was  hardly  to  be  hoped  for,  as  they  were  now 
engaged  in  a  fierce  war  with  Eussia.  The  Spaniards  did 
not  know  that  a  more  efficient  force  than  England  and 
France  was  working  for  them — public  sentiment  in  the 
northern  half  of  the  Union. 


1  Calderon  to  Soulfc,  April  12th. 

*  Madrid  correspondence  London  Times,  April  20th. 


628  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1854 

In  the  official  circles  of  Madrid,  war  with  the  United  States 
was  now  considered  as  very  probable,  and  the  chances  of  it 
were  seriously  discussed.  The  most  sensible  men  in  Spain 
were  convinced  that  Cuba  must  sooner  or  later  belong  to 
the  United  States,  but  no  one  would  have  dared  to  propose 
its  sale.1  Such  a  project  would  have  displaced  any  ministry 
and  more  than  likely  overturned  the  dynasty.  In  the  event 
of  hostilities  with  the  United  States,  none  but  the  proud 
Spaniards  had  a  shadow  of  doubt  as  to  what  would  be  the 
fate  of  Cuba,  but  that  conquest  would  be  a  very  different 
affair  from  the  conquest  of  Mexico.  The  Americans  would 
find  that  to  win  the  "  Queen  of  the  Antilles  "  was  a  difficult 
task.  The  forts  and  the  city  would  be  obstinately  defended. 
Nor  would  the  Spaniards  confine  themselves  to  a  defensive 
warfare.  By  the  time  that  Havana  was  taken  the  magnifi- 
cent merchant  marine  of  the  United  States  would  be  swept 
from  the  seas  by  privateers  issuing  from  the  ports  of  Spain. 
Nor  would  the  fall  of  the  capital  city  end  the  contest.  The 
slaves  would  be  given  their  freedom  on  condition  of  fight- 
ing the  invaders ;  and  when  the  Americans  had  finally  ob- 
tained possession  of  Cuba,  they  might  find  it,  as  to  waste 
and  ruin  and  social  conditions,  a  very  St.  Domingo,  instead 
of  the  fair,  fruitful  island  they  had  set  out  to  conquer.* 

On  the  day  that  the  American  messenger  left  Madrid 
with  despatches  from  Soule  informing  his  government  of 
the  sudden  check  the  negotiations  had  received,  there  was 
published  the  decree  of  the  Spanish  government  announcing 
the  intention  of  putting  an  effectual  stop  to  the  slave-trade 
and  providing  for  a  better  regulation  of  the  slaves  in  Cuba.* 


1  Madrid  correspondence  London  Times,  April  21st. 

*  The  chances  of  such  a  war  are  well  discussed  in  the  Madrid  corre- 
spondence of  the  London  Times,  April  21st  and  May  10th.  Clayton  said 
in  the  Senate,  May  22d,  that  he  had  heard  the  former  Spanish  minister 
threaten  that  the  slaves  would  be  emancipated  in  Cuba  rather  than  per- 
mit the  Americans  to  take  it  by  violence. 

'  Madrid  correspondence  London  Time*,  April  17th.  See  discussion 
in  the  House  of  Commons. 


CH.VL]  FILIBUSTERS  AND  CUBA  529 

This  was  a  compliment  to  the  influence  of  England,  whose 
government  had  been  urging  Spain  to  this  course,  and 
was  a  bid  for  her  support.  Six  thousand  soldiers  were 
ordered  to  the  West  Indies  to  reinforce  the  garrisons  of 
Cuba.1 

When  the  correspondence  between  Soule  and  Calderon 
reached  Washington,  the  little  flurry  caused  by  the  seizure 
of  the  Black  Warrior  had  subsided,  except  where  an  excite- 
ment was  kept  alive  by  the  operations  of  filibusters.  The 
ship  and  her  cargo  had  been  released.  She  was  now  plying 
as  usual  between  New  York  and  Mobile,  touching  at  Ha- 
vana, where  she  was  treated  with  great  consideration  by 
the  authorities. 

A  few  days  before  the  despatch  from  Madrid  had  arrived, 
Slidell,  senator  from  Louisiana,  introduced  a  resolution  di- 
recting that  the  committee  on  foreign  relations  should  in- 
quire'into  the  expediency  of  authorizing  the  President  to 
suspend  the  neutrality  laws.  This  was  a  move  to  make  easy 
the  operation  of  filibusters  on  Cuba ;  and  if  the  execution 
of  those  laws  were  intermitted,  a  formidable  expedition  cer- 
tainly would  be  fitted  out  in  this  country.  The  proposition 
fell  flat  in  the  Senate,  aroused  no  interest  in  the  border 
States,  and  when  alluded  to  at  all  in  the  North  was  only 
mentioned  with  indignation.  From  several  brief  discus- 
sions in  Congress,  it  was  plainly  to  be  seen  that  a  proposi- 
tion looking  in  the  slightest  degree  to  war  with  Spain  on 
account  of  the  Black  Warrior  affair  would  not  for  a  mo- 
ment be  entertained.  Not  a  resolution  in  response  to  the 
President's  message  had  ever  been  introduced.  Clingman 
and  a  representative  from  Louisiana  had  broached  to  the 
administration  a  project  which  should  put  ten  million  dol- 
lars at  the  disposal  of  the  President,  giving  him  authority 
to  employ  the  army  and  navy  and  accept  the  services  of 
fifty  thousand  volunteers;  but  Pierce,  Marcy,  and  Davis 


1  Madrid  correspondence  London  Times,  May  10th ;  Soule  to  Marcy, 
May  24th. 


530  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1854 

were  earnest  in  their  opposition  to  any  such  proposition, 
and  the  matter  went  no  further.1 

However,  after  Soule's  important  despatches  were  re- 
ceived,  the  cabinet  was  reported  as  divided  on  the  subject, 
Davis  and  Gushing  urging  that  the  minister  should  be  fully 
sustained.8  Soule  confidently  expected  that  when  the  text 
of  Spain's  reply  was  read  to  the  cabinet,  he  would  be  ordered 
at  once  to  demand  his  passports  and  leave  Spain,  and  that 
war  would  ensue.3  But  the  President  was  not  at  first  dis- 
posed to  any  such  conclusion.  He  came  to  no  decision, 
except  that  nothing  should  be  positively  determined  until 
after  further  advices  from  Madrid.  A  Spanish  ambassador 
to  Washington  was  now  on  the  way,  and  it  might  be  ad- 
visable to  renew  with  him  negotiations  that  had  come  to  a 
standstill  at  Madrid.  Soule  was  not  recalled,  nor  was  his 
course  approved.4 

Although  the  correspondence  between  Soule  and  Calde- 
ron  was  kept  secret  in  this  country,  the  essential  points  of 
it  had  been  communicated  by  the  Madrid  correspondent  of 
the  London  Times  to  his  journal.  The  Spanish  government 
was  proverbially  leaky.  What  the  ministers  did  not  dis- 
close, the  queen  and  her  secret  counsellors  were  sure  to  tell. 
The  English  minister,  to  whom  the  contents  of  the  letters 
had  been  communicated,  undoubtedly  assisted  the  represent- 
ative of  the  Times  in  furnishing  information  to  the  British 
public,  and  was  of  great  service  in  enabling  him  to  sift  the 
rumors  which  were  current  in  Madrid.  At  any  rate,  he  got 


1  Speeches  and  Writings  of  Thos.  L.  Clingman,  pp.  375,  376,  quoted  by 
Von  Hoist. 

8  Washington  correspondence  of  New  York  Times,  May  10th.  The 
Washington  National  Intelligencer  of  May  13th  said:  "We  have  reason 
to  believe  that  the  New  York  Times  correspondent  in  this  city  possesses 
facilities  for  becoming  well-informed  in  our  diplomatic  State  affairs." 
James  W.  Simonton  was  the  correspondent. 

*  Memories  of  Many  Men,  Field,  p.  84. 

*  Simonton  in  New  York  Times,  Washington,  May  10th.    The  subse- 
quent  diplomatic  correspondence  confirms  this. 


CaVL]  FILIBUSTERS  AT  WORK  631 

at  the  gist  of  the  correspondence.  His  letters  were  exten- 
sively copied  into  the  American  journals,  so  that  the  public 
were  almost  as  well  informed  of  the  essential  facts  as  were 
the  cabinet.  They  knew  that  Soule  had  made  extraordi- 
nary demands ;  it  was  presumed  he  had  exceeded  his  author- 
ity ;  and  they  knew  that  his  demands  had  met  with  a  per- 
emptory refusal.  The  Northern  and  border  States  held  no 
feeling  of  resentment  towards  Spain.  Indeed,  one  may  find 
expressions  of  amusement  at  the  plight  of  Soule,  but  no  sen- 
timent whatever  in  favor  of  the  government  gratifying  his 
self-love  by  giving  him  its  support. 

Far  otherwise  was  the  sentiment  of  the  slavery  propa- 
ganda. The  acquisition  of  Cuba  was  certain  to  increase 
their  power  in  the  federal  Union  by  the  addition  of  two  or 
more  slave  States ;  therefore,  they  wanted  a  pretext  for  a 
war  with  Spain.  They  were  convinced  she  would  not  sell 
Cuba,1  and  they  pretended  to  believe  that  a  movement  was 
set  on  foot  to  Africanize  the  island.  By  this  it  was  meant 
that  the  influence  of  Great  Britain  had  been  strong  enough 
to  induce  Spain  to  take  steps  towards  the  emancipation  of 
the  slaves ;  that  there  was  a  "  settled  design  to  throw  Cuba 
ultimately  into  the  hands  of  its  negro  population,  and  to  re- 
vive there  .  .  .  the  scenes  of  San  Domingo's  revolution." 3 
In  spite  of  the  explicit  denial  of  this  report  by  the  Captain- 
General  of  Cuba ; 3  in  defiance  of  the  assurance  of  the  Eng- 
lish Foreign  Secretary  of  State  that  there  was  no  foundation 
for  the  belief;4  and  although  Clayton  challenged  Benjamin 


1  See  the  speech  in  the  Senate,  May  22d,  of  Mallory,  of  Florida. 

*  Senator  Mallory's  resolution  introduced  into  the  Senate,  May  17th. 
The  resolutions  of  the  legislature  of  Louisiana  presented  to  the  Senate  by 
Benjamin,  May  24th,  were  similar  in  purport. 

3  Decree  of  the  Captain-General  of  May  3d,  published  in  New  York 
Times  of  May  16th. 

*  Buchanan,  in  a  despatch  to  Marcy  of  Nov.  1st,  1853,  reported  a  con- 
versation had  with  Lord  Clarendon :  "  I  said, '  Your  lordship  must  be 
fully  aware  of  the  deep,  the  vital,  interest  which  we  feel  in  regard  to  the 
condition  of  the  colored  population  of  Cuba.    This  island  is  within  sight 


532  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1854 

to  bring  as  proof  of  the  assertion  an  expression  of  belief  in 
the  story  from  the  present  Secretary  of  State,  or  from  any 
other  man  who  had  ever  held  that  office,1  yet  Southern  sena- 


of  our  shores ;  and  should  a  black  government  like  that  of  Hayti  be  es- 
tablished there,  it  would  endanger  the  peace  and  domestic  security  of  a 
large  and  important  portion  of  our  people.  To  come,  then,  to  the  point : 
it  has  been  publicly  stated  and  reiterated  over  and  over  again  in  the 
United  States,  that  Spain,  should  she  find  it  impossible  to  retain  the  isl- 
and, will  emancipate  the  slaves  upon  it ;  and  that  the  British  government 
is  endeavoring  to  persuade  her  to  pursue  this  course.'  I  here  paused  for 
a  reply. 

"  He  answered,  *  We  certainly  have  no  wish,  very  far  from  it,  to  see  a 
black  government  established  in  Cuba.  We  have  been  pressing  Spain 
incessantly  to  put  down  the  African  slave-trade  with  Cuba ;  and  I  regret 
to  say,  without  yet  having  produced  the  effect  which  we  so  much  desire. 
.  .  .  With  the  exception  of  urging  Spain  to  abolish  the  slave-trade  and 
endeavoring  to  trace  out  the  emancipados,  and  do  them  the  justice  which 
good  faith  requires  of  us — and  in  this  last  we  have  had  very  little  success 
— we  have  never  had  any  negotiations  of  any  kind  with  Spain  or  attempt- 
ed to  exercise  any  influence  over  her  respecting  the  condition  of  the  slaves 
in  Cuba.  We  have  not  the  most  remote  idea  in  any  event  of  ever  attempt- 
ing to  acquire  Cuba  for  ourselves.  We  have  already  too  many  colonies, 
far  more  than  are  profitable  to  us.' " — MSS.  State  Department  Archives. 

Buchanan  wrote  Marcy,  Nov.  12th,  1853 :  Lord  Clarendon  observed  that 
"  he  was  very  much  pained  to  learn  there  had  been  a  violent  and  wholly  un- 
founded article  in  the  Washington  Union  charging  them  with  an  intrigue 
with  Spain  to  'Africanize'  Cuba."— Ibid. 

March  17th,  1854,  Buchanan  reported  a  conversation  with  Clarendon 
in  which  he  asked :  "  Have  Great  Britain  and  France  entered  into  any 
treaty  or  understanding  of  any  kind  whatever  concerning  Cuba,  or  in 
relation  either  to  the  present  or  prospective  condition  of  that  island  ?" 
He  replied :  "  Great  Britain  and  France  have  not  entered  into  any  treaty 
or  understanding,  direct  or  indirect,  of  any  kind  whatever  concerning 
Cuba  or  in  relation  to  the  present  or  prospective  condition  of  Cuba;  we 
have  never  even  thought  of  such  a  thing,  nor  have  we  the  least  intention 
to  adopt  any  such  course." — Ibid. 

The  position  of  England  was  well  understood  by  the  public.  See  Wash- 
ington correspondence  Philadelphia  Ledger,  May  28th,  cited  in  New  York 
Times;  Washington  correspondence  New  York  Courier  and  Enquirer, 
cited  in  the  Independent,  June  8th. 

1  In  the  Senate,  May  24th. 


OH.  VI.]  FILIBUSTERS  AT  WORK  533 

tors  persistently  averred  that  unless  we  interfered,  the  scenes 
of  St.  Domingo  would  be  repeated  within  a  few  hours'  sail 
of  our  shores.  It  cannot  be  supposed  that  intelligent  men 
like  Benjamin  and  Slidell  believed  this  story,  but  they  knew 
the  credulity  of  the  Southern  people  where  their  darling 
institution  was  concerned,  and,  as  a  similar  report  had 
created  a  powerful  opinion  in  support  of  the  annexation  of 
Texas  the  spread  of  this  tale  was  sure  to  work  up  a  senti- 
ment in  favor  of  a  war  with  Spain,  and  it  would  arouse  a 
feeling  of  sympathy  with  the  designs  of  the  filibusters  who 
were  now  actively  at  work. 

The  leader  of  the  filibusters  was  Quitman,  a  former  gov- 
ernor of  Mississippi  and  a  personal  and  political  friend  of  Jef- 
ferson Davis.  He  had  visited  Washington  in  July,  1853,  and, 
frankly  disclosing  his  object  to  many  distinguished  men  at 
the  capital,  had  been  delighted  to  hear  expressions  of  sympa- 
thy and  receive  the  assurance  that  there  would  not  be  a  pre- 
text for  federal  interference  with  his  plan.1  He  had  then 
devoted  himself  earnestly  to  the  task,  and  in  May  of  this 
year  the  project  was  almost  ripe.  "  The  great  Cuban  army," 
wrote  a  gentleman  from  Jackson,  Mississippi,  "  will  soon  be 
ready  to  start,  under  command  of  our  former  governor,  Gen- 
eral Quitman.  The  men  who  are  going  from  this  section 
are  of  the  right  stripe  and  will  <  never  say  die.'  Mississippi 
rifles  will  tell  the  tale  on  Spanish  soldiers.  There  is  no  secret 


1  Life  and  Correspondence  of  Gen.  John  A.  Quitman,  Claiborne,  vol. 
ii.  p.  195.  Quitman  is  an  example  of  a  Northern  man  who  became  in- 
tensely Southern  in  his  opinions.  Born  and  educated  in  New  York  State, 
he  was  for  a  time  professor  at  Mount  Airy  College,  Germantown,  Penn. ; 
he  studied  law  in  Ohio,  and  was  admitted  to  the  bar ;  he  went  South 
when  twenty-three  years  old,  married  a  wealthy  woman  of  Mississippi  at 
twenty-six,  and  came  into  possession  of  a  large  estate.  He  served  in  the 
legislature  of  Mississippi,  became  chancellor  of  the  State,  was  a  brigadier- 
general  in  the  Mexican  war.  On  return  from  the  war  was  elected  gov- 
ernor, and  was  sent  to  Congress  in  1854  and  1856.  Throughout  life 
Quitman  was  an  avowed  advocate  of  the  doctrine  of  States-rights  and  a 
leader  of  the  extreme  Southern  party. 


534  PDERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1864 

about  this  movement.  Every  one  who  has  been  to  New 
Orleans  says  that  the  amount  of  money  subscribed  by  the 
merchants  there  is  very  heavy.  Every  one  favors  the  move, 
and  although  the  New  Orleans  papers  keep  dark,  yet  the 
subject  is  bar-room  talk.  There  is  no  man  so  well  qualified 
as  old  Quitman.  He  has  the  confidence  of  the  sharp-shoot- 
ers of  this  State.  .  .  .  The  plan  meets  with  favor  among  the 
cotton-planters,  but  they  have  not  come  forward  with  the 
dimes  to  the  amount  that  was  anticipated." '  A  letter  from 
the  same  city  a  week  later  stated  that  General  Quitman  and 
his  staff  were  in  New  Orleans ;  that  a  sufficient  number  of 
men  had  enlisted,  but  money  was  needed ;'  three  hundred 
thousand  dollars  more  was  necessary,  and  Quitman  and  an- 
other man  had  almost  made  up  their  minds  to  mortgage 
their  estates  to  secure  that  amount.  The  state  of  Soule's 
negotiation  was  well  understood ;  it  was  thought  that  the 
filibusters  were  in  intimate  connection  with  him,  and  that 
he  had  exceeded  his  instructions  in  the  hope  of  bringing 
about  trouble  between  the  United  States  and  Spain,  thereby 
furthering  the  designs  of  those  who  were  ready  to  attack 
Cuba.9 

There  is  no  question  that  powerful  influences  were  now 
brought  to  bear  upon  the  President  with  the  design  of  hav- 
ing him  assume  a  position  in  the  Black  Warrior  affair  that 
would  force  Congress,  for  the  honor  of  the  country  and  for 
the  support  of  the  executive,  to  authorize  proceedings  which 
could  only  result  in  a  war  with  Spain.  The  ruling  spirit  of 
this  cabal  was  Jefferson  Davis,  and  as  he  apparently  at  this 
moment  controlled  the  columns  of  the  Washington  Union, 
it  ^as  not  an  idle  fear  that  he  had  the  ascendency  over  the 


1  Private  letter  from  Jackson,  Mississippi,  to  a  gentleman  in  New  York 
City,  dated  May  27th,  New  York  Tribune,  June  10th. 

8  Letter  from  Jackson,  Mississippi,  to  the  editor  of  the  New  York 
Times,  dated  June  4th,  published  June  14th,  the  journal  vouching  that 
it  was  from  "  an  intelligent  and  reliable  source ; "  see  also  extracts  from  a 
"Private  and  Confidential"  circular,  issued  by  the  Cuban  conspirators  in 
New  Orleans,  published  in  the  New  York  Tribune  of  June  15th. 


CH.  VI.]  WAR  WITH  SPAIN  IMMINENT  636 

President.  "  "We  are  quite  free  to  state,"  said  the  organ  of 
the  administration — "  and  in  terms  so  emphatic  and  une- 
quivocal as  to  admit  of  no  misinterpretation — that  if  ample 
satisfaction  is  not  allowed  for  the  piratical  seizure  of  the 
Black  Warrior  we  shall  advocate  an  immediate  blockade 
of  the  island."  l  A  few  days  later  the  organ  complacently 
stated,  as  if  the  matter  had  already  been  decided  upon,  that, 
"  in  the  course  of  the  thick-coming  events  Cuba  is  bound  to 
be  admitted  "  into  the  Union.8  The  senators  and  represen- 
tatives from  the  cotton  States  were  convinced  that  now  was 
a  most  favorable  opportunity  to  strike  for  Cuba.  On  May 
20th,  news  was  received  from  Havana  which  seemed  to  in- 
dicate that  the  apple  was  ready  for  the  plucking.  Letters 
which  reached  Washington  that  day  were  full  of  an  impend- 
ing revolution  in  the  island.3  It  was  reported  that  the 
Creole  proprietors  were  determined  to  stand  oppression  no 
longer ;  that  the  registration  of  the  slaves  in  accordance  with 
the  decree  of  the  Captain-General  had  given  rise  to  a  rumor 
that  emancipation  of  the  negroes  would  soon  follow,  and  that 
this  was  bringing  matters  to  a  crisis.4  The  Captain-General 
had  solemnly  denounced  as  false  and  malicious  the  rumor 
that  a  compact  had  been  made  with  Great  Britain  which 
would  result  in  freeing  the  slaves.  But  the  story  continued 
to  circulate.  The  authorities  became  alarmed,  and  with  dili- 
gence made  ready  to  repress  an  insurrection  at  home  and 
repel  an  attack  from  the  United  States. 

At  the  time  that  the  important  despatches  from  Soule 
reached  "Washington,  the  attention  of  the  administration  and 
of  the  country  was  absorbed  in  the  struggle  over  the  Kan- 
sas-Nebraska bill  in  the  House  of  Eepresentatives.  "When 
the  importance  of  these  several  events  was  realized,  as  tend- 
ing to  one  certain  course  of  action,  the  bill  had  passed  the 


1  Washington  Union,  May  llth,  cited  in  New  York  Time*. 
1  Washington  Union,  cited  by  New  York  Times  oi  May  15th. 
8  Simonton  to  New  York  Times,  Washington,  May  20th. 
4  Simonton  from  Washington,  May  23d,  New  York  Times. 


536  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1854 

House  and  its  final  enactment  was  a  foregone  conclusion. 
There  were  those  who,  in  their  enthusiasm  over  the  parlia- 
mentary victory,  not  looking  beyond  the  district  of  Colum- 
bia, thought  that  the  dominant  party  could  accomplish  any- 
thing which  they  would  undertake.  Energetic  and  prompt 
action  on  the  part  of  Congress  or  a  word  from  the  Presi- 
dent was  all  that  was  needed  to  precipitate  action.  The 
cabinet  were  more  disposed  than  at  first  to  sustain  Soule, 
since  a  precedent  for  his  demand  had  been  found.1  The 
warlike  disposition  of  a  large  part  of  the  cabinet  was  no 
secret.  Five  Democratic  representatives  from  New  York, 
who  had  opposed  the  Nebraska  scheme,  now  issued  an  ad- 
dress to  their  constituents,  in  which  they  averred  that  there 
was  a  determination  "to  acquire  Cuba  utterly  reckless  of 
consequences."  Little  doubt  can  exist  "  that  an  effort  will 
be  made  directly  or  indirectly  at  the  conquest  of  Cuba  and 
its  incorporation  into  the  Union  as  additional  slave  terri- 
tory;" and  it  is  a  reasonable  cause  for  fear  that "  we  are  about 
to  be  precipitated  into  a  war"  on  account  of  the  Black  War- 
rior affair.1  "  We  have  reason  to  know,"  said  the  New  York 
Times,  in  a  carefully  written  article, "  that  the  impression  is 
very  strong  among  the  best-informed  men  at  Washington 
that  the  administration  has  purposely  arranged  matters  so 
as  to  render  a  war  with  Spain  almost  inevitable.  A  very 
distinguished  gentleman,  not  long  since  a  cabinet  officer 
and  likely  to  be  well  informed  on  the  subject,  has  expressed 
the  belief  that  we  should  be  at  war  with  Spain  within  nine- 
ty days."8 

Yet  the  action  was  not  taken  by  Congress,  and  the  word 
was  not  spoken  by  the  President.  If  Pierce  was  for  a 
moment  inclined  to  follow  the  lead  of  Davis  in  this  matter, 
he  shrank  from  it  when  confronted  by  the  resistance  of  the 


1  Simonton,  Washington,  May  28th,  New  York  Times. 
*  This  address  was  to  justify  their  action  on  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill; 
was  published  in  the  New  York  Times,  May  29th. 
1  June  2d. 


CH.VL]  WAR  WITH  SPAIN  AVOIDED  637 

Secretary  of  State  and  the  almost  certain  opposition  of  Con- 
gress.1 Marcy  and  the  members  of  the  majority  averse  to 
war  were  backed  by  the  almost  unanimous  sentiment  of  the 
North ;  and  their  arguments,  pointed  as  they  were  by  con- 
stant references  to  the  mighty  force  of  the  actual  public 
opinion,  in  the  end  prevailed. 

On  the  1st  of  June  a  proclamation  was  issued  by  the 
President  warning  the  filibusters  who  were  fitting  out  an 
expedition  for  the  invasion  of  Cuba  that  the  neutrality 
laws  would  be  enforced,  and  that  they  would  be  prose- 
cuted. Quitman  was  afterwards  arrested  at  New  Orleans 
and  obliged  to  give  bonds  that  he  would  for  nine  months 
observe  the  neutrality  laws  of  the  United  States.  A  few 
days  after  this  important  step  was  taken  by  the  President, 
it  became  apparent  that  the  moderate  element  in  the  ad- 
ministration had  won  and  that  the  danger  of  war  was  past.9 

It  is  highly  probable  that  but  for  the  strong  feeling 
aroused  at  the  North  by  the  Kansas-Nebraska  measure,  the 
Southern  propaganda  would  at  this  time  have  forced  the 
administration  and  Congress  into  war  with  Spain  for  the 
conquest  of  Cuba.  The  Black  Warrior  affair  would  have 
been  a  contemptible  cause  of  war  between  two  friendly 
countries,  but  lighter  pretexts  than  that  have  sufficed  to 
bring  about  hostilities  when  the  wolf  nation  has  desired  to 
prey  upon  the  lamb.  The  conditions  were  supremely  favor- 
able for  the  United  States.  The  only  powers  from  which 
Spain  could  expect  help  were  engaged  in  the  Crimean  war. 
Although  the  government  of  England  would .  dislike  to  see 
the  country  which  was  disputing  with  her  the  commercial 
supremacy  of  the  seas  get  possession  of  Cuba,  yet  Cobden 
represented  a  powerful  sentiment  when  he  declared  amid 
cheers  in  the  House  of  Commons  that,  "Without  saying 


1  See  Life  of  Davis,  Alfriend,  p.  97. 

8  See  Simonton,  Washington,  June  9th  and  15th,  New  York  Times.  I 
will  add  that  the  contemporaneous  and  subsequent  events  adequately 
confirm  the  reports  of  Simonton  at  the  time. 


638  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1854 

one  word  about  the  expediency  of  giving  Cuba  to  the 
United  States  or  assisting  that  country  to  take  possession 
of  the  island,  he  thought  it  would  be  greatly  for  the  inter- 
ests of  humanity  if  the  United  States  or  any  other  power 
that  would  altogether  discountenance  the  slave  trade  should 
possess  it." l  And  Clarendon,  the  English  foreign  Secretary 
of  State  had  admitted  to  Buchanan  that  Cuba  was  wretch- 
edly governed.  He  said  that  he  had  told  the  Spanish  min- 
ister at  London  "  that  if  Spain  lost  Cuba  it  would  be  alto- 
gether their  own  fault,  and  they  would  be  indebted  for  it  to 
the  wretched  manner  in  which  they  governed  the  island." 
He  further  informed  Buchanan  "  that  although  Spain  did 
not  deserve  it  at  the  hands  of  the  British  government,  they 
still  felt  a  sympathy  for  her  arising  out  of  their  ancient  al- 
liances."3 The  Empress  Eugenie  would  indeed  have  been 
glad  to  assist  her  native  country,  but  France  could  hardly 
undertake  another  war  merely  for  a  sentiment.  It  was 
therefore  unlikely  that  either  France  or  England  would 
interfere  in  a  conflict  between  the  United  States  and  Spain, 
and  this  was  well  understood  at  our  State  department. 

It  is  indeed  true  that  if  the  difficulty  could  be  accommo- 
dated by  reasonable  negotiation,  a  sense  of  justice  and  re- 
gard for  the  opinion  of  the  civilized  world  should  have 
prevented  our  government  from  pouncing  upon  Spain.  But 
it  was  not  thus  that  many  of  those  in  authority  argued. 
They  applied  the  remark  of  Burke  to  the  present  case.  "  If," 
the  English  statesman  said,  "  my  neighbor's  house  is  in  flames 
and  the  fire  is  likely  to  spread  to  my  own,  I  am  justified  in 
interfering  to  avert  a  disaster  which  promises  to  be  equally 


1  Hansard's  Parl.  Debates.  Third  Series,  vol.  cxxxii.,  April  4th,  1854; 
see  New  York  Times,  April  17th ;  also  extract  from  Liverpool  Times, 
quoted  in  the  Senate  by  Mallory,  May  22d.  "In  the  present  state  of 
feeling  in  England,  no  great  regret  would  be  felt  if  the  Americans  were 
to  get  possession  of  Cuba  in  the  scramble.  In  its  present  hands,  that 
beautiful  island  is  a  source  to  us  of  more  annoyance  than  any  other  place 
on  the  globe,  Russia  not  excepted." 

*  Buchanan  to  Marcy,  Nov.  1st,  1853.   MSS.  State  Department  Archives, 


OH.  VI.]  WAR  WITH  SPAIN  AVOIDED  539 

fatal  to  both."  Cuba,  asserted  the  organ  of  the  administra- 
tion, under  her  present  rule  threatens  our  prosperity  and  our 
honor,  and  there  is  but  one  single  way  by  which  the  present 
situation  can  be  remedied.  We  must  take  the  island  if 
needs  be,  in  defiance  of  all  Europe.1  It  may  be  affirmed 
with  confidence  that  Northern  public  opinion  excited  by 
the  Kansas-Nebraska  act  alone  prevented  this  unjust  war.* 
Without  that  power  at  his  back,  Marcy  would  have  protested 
in  vain.  He  would  have  been  forced  to  resign  as  was  Web- 
ster when  he  stood  in  the  way  of  the  annexation  of  Texas. 
And  had  not  many  Northern  senators  and  representatives 
felt  that  they  had  already  dared  too  much  in  the  repeal  of 
the  Missouri  Compromise,  they  could  have  been  induced  to 
register  the  decrees  of  the  slavery  propaganda  in  regard  to 
Cuba. 

What  a  foolish  piece  of  state-craft  was  that  of  the  South- 
ern leaders  in  1854 !     They  obtained  a  fighting  chance  in 


1  Washington  Union,  May  llth,  cited  by  New  York  Times,  May  13th. 

2  The  evidences  of  this  statement  are  without  number.     I  will  cite 
three.     Clayton  said  in  the  Senate,  May  22d :  "  I  see  no  reason  at  this 
time  for  this  government's  interference  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  Cuba 
by  war  or  violence  of  any  kind  or  by  the  repeal  of  our  laws  of  neutrality. 
I  think  it  a  dangerous  period  to  make  an  effort  of  that  description.  There 
is  great  excitement  at  this  time  in  the  public  mind  throughout  the  United 
States  in  reference  to  the  subject  of  slavery."     The  New  York  Courier 
and  Enquirer  said,  June  1st :  "  Does  the  sane  man  live  who  believes  that 
if  Cuba  was  tendered  us  to-morrow  with  the  full  sanction  of  England  and 
France  that  this  people  would  consent  ,to  receive  and  annex  her  ?  .  .  . 
There  was  a  time  when  the  North  would  have  consented  to  annex  Cuba, 
but  the  Nebraska  wrong  has  forever  rendered  annexation  impossible." 
Said  the  New  York  Times,  May  26th :  "  There  is  a  growing  and  pro- 
found determination  among  the  masses  of  the  free  States  that  slavery 
shall  not  extend  itself;  that  the  great  majority  for  freedom  must  arouse 
and  simply  put  the  minority  down — come  what  may." 

None  of  these  are  radical  authorities.  Clayton  was  a  Southern  Whig. 
His  position  and  former  experience  in  the  State  department  gave  his 
utterances  great  weight.  The  New  York  Courier  and  Enquirer  was  con- 
servative Whig.  The  New  York  Times,  while  the  organ  of  Senator  Sew 
ard,  was  not  as  radical  as  the  Tribune  and  Evening  Post. 


540  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1864 

Kansas,  but  they  threw  away  the  pearl  of  the  Antilles,  the 
island  which  would  have  been  a  rock  and  a  fortress  for 
their  Southern  confederacy.1 

Although  the  President  and  Secretary  of  State  had  decided 
against  a  course  that  would  surely  lead  to  war,  they  had  by 
no  means  relinquished  the  hope  of  the  acquisition  of  Cuba. 
Marcy  was  undoubtedly  as  anxious  to  get  the  island  as  was 
Davis,  but  he  could  not  be  persuaded  that  the  end  would 
justify  any  means.  He  was,  moreover,  of  the  opinion  that 
money  would  induce  Spain  to  part  with  the  possession 
she  held  so  dear.  Before  he  had  received  the  account  of 
the  Black  Warrior  negotiations,  he  had  written  to  Soule : 
"  Should  circumstances  present  a  favorable  opportunity,  you 
are  directed  by  the  President  to  renew  the  attempt  to  pur- 
chase that  island." !  The  secretary  was  so  impressed  with 
the  importance  of  this  despatch  that  he  sent  Colonel  Sumner 
as  a  special  messenger  to  deliver  it.  But  as  Soule  had  prac- 
tically demanded  satisfaction  at  the  point  of  the  sword,  he 
could  not  now  treat  for  a  peaceful  purchase.3  The  Spanish 
minister  of  foreign  affairs  now  notified  him  that  the  Black 
Warrior  affair  had  been  settled  with  her  owners.  The 
property  for  which  the  indemnity  of  three  hundred  thou- 
sand dollars  was  asked  had  been  returned;  the  fine  re- 
mitted; the  Black  Wwrrior  had  been  granted  the  same 
privileges  at  Havana  as  were  allowed  the  steamers  of 
the  English  Eoyal  Mail  company,  and  the  company  to 
which  she  belonged  was  thoroughly  satisfied  with  the 
termination  of  the  affair.  The  United  States  govern- 
ment had  no  longer  cause  for  complaint;  the  facts 
showed  that  no  insult  had  been  offered  to  the  American 
flag.  The  Spanish  minister  at  the  close  of  his  letter  did 
not  forbear  alluding  to  the  "peremptory  demands  and 
acrid  language"  of  Soule, and  the  "unfriendly  haste"  with 


1  See  a  significant  article  in  the  Richmond  Enquirer,  cited  in  New  York 
Times,  May  19th. 
1  Marcy  to  Soule,  April  8d.  »  Soute  to  Marcy,  May  3d. 


CH.VL]  MARCY  AND  SOULE  54! 

which  the  President  of  the  United  States  had  censured  the 
action  of  the  Captain-General  of  Cuba.1 

The  reply  of  Marcy  to  this  communication  was  emphatic. 
"The  wrong  and  insult  to  the  nation,"  he  wrote,  have  not 
been  atoned;  the  treatment  of  the  Black  Warrior  "was 
clearly  an  act  of  flagrant  wrong ;  .  .  .  the  manner  in  which 
our  demand  for  indemnity  has  been  met  by  Spain  is  very 
unsatisfactory  to  the  President  and  the  attempted  justifica- 
tion of  the  conduct  of  the  Cuban  authorities  has  rather 
aggravated  than  mitigated  their  offence."  The  offence  was 
nothing  less  than  an  attempt  to  plunder  American  citizens. 
Soule  was  given  the  liberty  to  read  this  despatch  to  the 
Spanish  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  but,  fearing  lest  he  might 
translate  the  emphatic  words  into  a  threat  of  aggressive 
action,  his  instruction  was  drawn  up  with  great  care.  The 
President,  wrote  Marcy,  "  does  not  therefore  expect  you 
will  at  present  take  any  further  steps  in  relation  to  the  out- 
rage  in  the  case  of  the  Black  Warrior" 2 

The  correspondence  between  Marcy  and  Soule  shows  the 
utter  lack  of  sympathy  between  the  two  and  the  difference 
in  their  manner  of  envisaging  a  question.  The  Secretary  of 
State  had  disapproved  of  Soule's  appointment  as  minister  to 
Spain.8  Soule  was  born  too  late ;  he  seemed  like  a  knight- 
errant  of  a  former  century,  the  very  opposite  of  a  diplomat 
who  uses  language  to  conceal  his  thoughts.  An  insult  to  his 
nation  was  a  grievous  thing.  To  Soul6  the  course  was  clear 
— Spain  should  apologize  or  fight.  Marcy,  on  the  other 
hand,  was  a  hard-headed  lawyer  and  a  representative  man 
of  business  of  the  nineteenth  century.  Menacing  language 
he  thought  sometimes  proper,  and  it  might  be  used  in  a 
Pickwickian  sense.  He  would,  indeed,  have  repelled  the 
charge  that  he  himself  said  more  than  he  meant,  and  the 
result  certainly  justifies  the  language  of  this  despatch,  for 


1  Calderon  to  Soule,  May  7th.  «  Marcy  to  Soul6,  June  22d. 

«  See  New  York  Evening  Post,  March  7th,  1855. 


542  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1854 

in  the  end  it  was  the  means  of  bringing  about  a  settlement 
of  the  difficulty.1 

Had  not  Soule  been  working  in  a  bad  cause,  we  might 
admire  his  straightforwardness ;  we  certainly  should  not  fail 
to  sympathize  with  him  in  his  unpleasant  position.  Sup- 
posing that  he  would  be  sustained,  he  waited  with  all  the 
patience  at  his  command  the  six  weeks  that  must  necessarily 
elapse  before  he  could  hear  from  his  chief.  He  feared  that 
Congress  would  fail  to  take  the  resolve  which  the  occasion 
required.  In  this  case  he  would  not  for  a  moment  retain  a 
post  from  which  he  must  behold  the  contemptuous  insolence 
that  his  "  discomfiture  and  that  of  the  administration  would 
be  so  sure  to  provoke."  a  Time  went  on,  but  not  a  word 
came  from  the  Secretary  of  State.  Soule  suffered  "  tortur- 
ing anxiety ;"  he  saw  frequent  intimations  in  the  American 
papers  that  there  was  a  disagreement  between  him  and  the 
cabinet.  If  there  be  the  least  foundation  for  these  reports, 
he  wrote,  "  pray  tender  at  once  my  resignation  to  the  Pres- 
ident."3 Nine  days  later  he  received  a  despatch  from 
Marcy,  but  he  was  "  concerned  not  to  find  in  it  the  least  in- 
timation of  the  light  in  which  is  viewed  by  the  cabinet  the 
course  "  he  had  pursued  under  the  guidance  of  the  Secretary 
of  State  in  the  Black  Wwrrior  affair.  His  private  letters 
gave  him  no  encouragement,  and  his  position  was  becoming 
"  so  painful  and  delicate  "  that  he  could  not  think  of  hold- 
ing it  much  longer.  He  reported  that  the  belief  was  prev- 
alent at  Madrid  that  he  had  exceeded  his  instructions  and 
that  everything  which  he  had  done  would  be  disavowed. 
Congress  had  certainly  hurt  our  reputation  for  character 
by  not  responding  promptly  to  the  President's  message  of 
March  15th.4  Soule  was  obviously  disappointed  at  the 


1  Calderon  did  not  see  the  despatch  of  June  22d.  It  was  not  shown  to 
the  minister  of  foreign  affairs  until  Dec.  8th,  and  at  that  time  a  new 
ministry  was  in  power. 

8  Soule  to  Marcy,  May  24th.  '  Soule  to  Marcy,  June  10th. 

*  Soule  to  Marcy,  June  19th. 


CH.  VI]  MARCY  AND  SOULE  543 

President's  proclamation  against  the  filibusters.  He  saw 
his  great  desire  receding  from  his  grasp.1  At  last,  fifty  days 
after  he  had  expected  to  receive  a  warm  approbation  of  his 
course,  there  came  cold  and  measured  words  which  seemed 
wrung  from  the  Secretary  of  State.  The  President,  he 
wrote,  is  "  satisfied  with  the  spirited  manner  in  which  you 
have  performed  the  duties  of  your  mission,"  but  he  thinks 
that  "  weight  and  perhaps  efficiency  "  will  be  given  to  the 
negotiation  "if  he  should  associate  with  you  two  other  of 
our  most  distinguished  citizens."  *• 

Before  this  despatch  and  the  one  which  Soule  was  in- 
structed to  read  to  Calderon  reached  him,  a  revolution  had 
taken  place  in  Spain  which,  starting  with  high  anticipations 
of  reform  and  hopes  for  liberty,  really  effected  nothing  but 
a  change  of  ministry.  Several  engagements  with  the  in- 
surgents occurred.  Queen  Isabella  ran  the  risk  of  capt- 
ure by  the  rebels ;  the  palace  of  the  queen  dowager  was 
sacked  and  her  life  threatened.  The  chivalrous  nature  of 
Soule  here  showed  itself.  He  alone  of  the  diplomatic  body 
offered  the  queen  dowager  the  shelter  of  his  house  and  the 
protection  of  his  flag.8  The  change  of  ministry  greatly  im- 
proved Soule's  position,  and  he  was  able  to  renew  the  nego- 
tiations. 

The  news  of  the  Spanish  revolution  was  of  considerable 
interest  to  the  administration.  It  strengthened  the  hopes 
of  Marcy  that  a  purchase  of  Cuba  might  be  effected,  and  it 
revived  the  desire  for  provisional  legislation  which  had  in 
March  been  suggested  by  the  President.  As  Congress  was 
on  the  point  of  adjourning,  the  Washington  Union  begged 
that  a  few  millions  of  money  should  be  placed  at  the  dis- 
posal of  the  executive  during  the  recess  to  be  used  in  the 
Spanish-Cuban  business.4  The  President  in  a  special  mes- 


»  Soulfc  to  Marcy,  June  24th. 

*  Marcy  to  Soule,  June  34th. 

'  See  Memories  of  Many  Men,  Field,  p.  91. 

*  "Washington  Union,  July  30th,  cited  by  New  York  Tima. 


544  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1864 

sage  to  the  Senate  hinted  strongly  in  the  same  direction,  but 
the  Senate  committee  of  foreign  affairs  reported  that  as  the 
interval  between  adjournment  and  the  next  session  of  Con- 
gress would  be  short,  they  would  not  recommend  any  pro- 
visional measures.1 

On  the  16th  of  August  Marcy  wrote  that  the  sending  of 
an  extraordinary  commission  to  Spain  had  been  abandoned, 
but  it  was  suggested  to  Soule  that  much  advantage  might 
accrue  from  "  a  full  and  free  interchange  of  views"  between 
himself,  Buchanan,  and  Mason  in  regard  to  the  acquisition 
of  Cuba.2  Soule  "  felt  much  relieved  by  the  tender  of  so 
grateful  an  association,"  and  set  out  as  soon  as  possible  for 
Paris.8  Marcy  desired  that  the  meeting  should  be  quiet  and 
partake  of  an  informal  character,  but  Soule  was  fond  of 
theatrical  display  and  was  not  unwilling  that  the  conference 
should  attract  attention  by  its  solemn  and  imposing  char- 
acter. Ostend  was  selected  as  the  place  of  meeting.  The 
ministers  remained  there  three  days,  then  retired  to  Aix- 
la-Chapelle,  where  they  recorded  the  result  of  their  delib- 
erations. The  conference  attracted  attention  in  Europe, 
notwithstanding  that  all  eyes  were  fixed  on  the  siege  of 
Sebastopol.  It  also  gave  rise  to  comment  in  the  United 
States,  although  at  the  time  the  public  mind  waa  en- 
gaged by  the  fall  elections.  The  paper  which  Buchanan, 
Mason,  and  Soul6  signed  is  known  as  the  Ostend  manifesto. 
It  was  not  published  until  more  than  four  months  after 
its  transmission  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  and  was  then 
brought  to  the  light  by  a  call  from  the  House  of  Bepre- 
sentatives. 

It  began  by  stating  that  there  had  "  been  a  f nil  and  un- 
reserved interchange  of  views  and  sentiments,"  and  that  the 
committee  had  arrived  at  a  cordial  agreement.  They  were 
fully  convinced  that  an  earnest  effort  should  be  made  im- 


1  This  report  was  made  Aug.  3d.  •  Marcy  to  Sonte,  Attg.  16th. 

'  See  Sonle  to  Marcy,  Oct.  15th. 


CH.VL]  THE  OSTEND  MANIFESTO  545 

mediately  for  the  purchase  of  Cuba,  and  advised  offering  for 
it  one  hundred  and  twenty  million  dollars.1  An  argument 
followed  to  show  that  Cuba  was  necessary  to  the  United 
States  and  that  it  was  likewise  for  the  manifest  advantage 
of  Spain  to  part  with  it  for  the  price  we  were  willing  to  pay. 
Then  the  three  diplomats  proceeded :  "  But  if  Spain,  dead 
to  the  voice  of  her  own  interest,  and  actuated  by  stubborn 
pride  and  a  false  sense  of  honor,  should  refuse  to  sell  Cuba 
to  the  United  States,  then  the  question  will  arise,  what 
ought  to  be  the  course  of  the  American  government  under 
such  circumstances?"  The  answer  is  easy.  Since  "the 
Union  can  never  enjoy  repose  nor  possess  reliable  security, 
as  long  as  Cuba  is  not  embraced  within  its  boundaries ;"  and 
as  "  self-preservation  is  the  first  law  of  nature  with  States 
as  well  as  with  individuals,"  we  must  apply  this  "great 
law"  to  the  acquisition  of  Cuba.  It  is  true  this  principle 
was  abused  in  the  partition  of  Poland,  but  the  present  is 
"  not  a  parallel  case ;"  and  if  we  "  preserve  our  own  con- 
scious rectitude  and  our  own  self-respect  ...  we  can  afford 
to  disregard  the  censures  of  the  world."  Therefore :  "  After 
we  shall  have  offered  Spain  a  price  for  Cuba  far  beyond  its 
present  value,  and  this  shall  have  been  refused,  it  will  then 
be  time  to  consider  the  question,  does  Cuba  in  the  posses- 
sion of  Spain  seriously  endanger  our  internal  peace  and  the 
existence  of  our  cherished  Union  ?  Should  this  question  be 
answered  in  the  affirmative  [it  had  already  been  so  answered 
in  the  manifesto],  then,  by  every  law,  human  and  divine,  we 
shall  be  justified  in  wresting  it  from  Spain  if  we  possess  the 
power ;  and  this  upon  the  very  same  principle  that  would 
justify  an  individual  in  tearing  down  the  burning  house  of 
his  neighbor  if  there  were  no  other  means  of  preventing  the 
flames  from  destroying  his  own  home,  .  .  .  We  should  be 
recreant  to  our  duty,  be  unworthy  of  our  gallant  forefathers, 


1  In  the  publication  the  price  was  left  blank,  but  the  argument  in  the 
subsequent  part  of  the  manifesto  shows  plainly  enough  that  one  hundred 
tnd  twenty  million  dollars  was  the  sum  which  the  diplomats  had  in  mind. 


546  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1854 

and  commit  base  treason  against  our  posterity,  should  we 
permit  Cuba  to  be  Africanized  and  become  a  second  St.  Do- 
mingo, with  all  its  attendant  horrors  to  the  white  race,  and 
suffer  the  flames  to  extend  to  our  own  neighboring  shores, 
seriously  to  endanger  or  actually  to  consume  the  fair  fabric 
of  our  Union.  "We  fear  that  the  course  and  current  of  events 
are  rapidly  tending  towards  such  a  catastrophe."  To  these 
sentiments  were  subscribed  the  names  of  James  Buchanan, 
J.  Y.  Mason,  and  Pierre  Soule. 

It  will  be  plainly  apparent  to  the  reader  that  this  mani- 
festo expressed  the  sincere  opinion  of  Soule.  That  Mason, 
who  belonged  to  a  Virginian  junto  which  was  anxious  for 
Cuba,  should  have  signed  it  may  not  occasion  surprise ;  but 
it  remains  something  of  a  mystery  why  the  cautious  and 
experienced  Buchanan  should  have  agreed  to  a  manifesto 
which  contained  notions  abhorrent  to  justice  and  at  war 
with  the  opinion  of  the  civilized  world.  Field,  who  was  in 
a  position  to  learn  the  inside  history  of  the  transaction,  un- 
derstood that  the  manifesto  was  originally  written  by  Soule 
and  then  revised  by  Buchanan.  Yet  the  measures  recom- 
mended were  so  ultra  that  neither  Buchanan  nor  Mason 
would  have  signed  it  had  not  Soule  cajoled  them  by  his  en- 
thusiastic advocacy.1  Mason  was  afterwards  conscious  that 
he  had  been  overborne,  for  he  took  occasion  to  warn  Field 
against  the  fascinations  of  the  minister  to  Spain,  whom  he 
described  "as  a  perfect  bird-charmer." a  We  may  presume 
that  Soule  drew  the  veil  and  showed  Buchanan  the  vision 
of  the  White  House  and  persuaded  him  that  with  thus  next 
Democratic  convention  Cuba  would  be  a  more  powerful  ar- 
gument than  Nebraska.  When  we  take  into  account  the 
characteristics  of  the  three  men  we  can  hardly  resist  the 
conclusion  that  Soule,  as  he  afterwards  intimated,  twisted 
his  colleagues  round  his  finger.3 

Soule  did  not  propose  to  have  any  misunderstanding 
about  the  matter.    He  sent  with  the  manifesto  an  explana- 


1  Memories  of  Many  Men,  p.  99,          » Ibid.,  p.  78.          *  Ibid.,  p.  99. 


CH.VL]  THE  OSTEND  MANIFESTO  547 

tory  despatch  to  Marcy  in  which  he  expressed  his  own  idea 
without  the  least  circumlocution.  He  affirmed  that  we  must 
get  Cuba ;  we  must  settle  that  matter  now ;  never  should 
we  have  a  fairer  opportunity.  "  Present  indications,"  he 
wrote,  "  would  seem  to  encourage  the  hope  that  we  may 
come  to  that  solution  peaceably.  But  if  it  were  otherwise," 
— if  we  must  go  to  war  for  it — when  could  there  be  a  bet- 
ter time  for  war  than  now,  while  the  great  powers  of  Eu- 
rope "  are  engaged  in  that  stupendous  struggle.  .  .  .  Neither 
England  nor  France,"  he  added,  "  would  be  likely  to  inter- 
fere with  us." l 

The  reply  of  Marcy  to  the  manifesto  was  chilling.  He 
first  affected  to  understand  that  the  three  ministers  did  not 
"  recommend  to  the  President  to  offer  to  Spain  the  alterna- 
tive of  cession  or  seizure "  of  Cuba ; a  but  he  proceeded  to 
reason  earnestly  against  such  a  proposition,  and  took  direct 
issue  with  the  self-preservation  argument.  The  instructions 
to  the  minister  at  Madrid  were  completely  at  variance  with 
the  policy  laid  down  in  the  manifesto.  If  Spain  were  dis- 
posed to  entertain  an  offer  for  Cuba,  the  offer  might  be 
made ;  but  there  should  be  no  attempt  "  to  push  on  a  nego- 
tiation" if  the  men  in  power  were  averse  to  it.3  Field,  who 
was  acting  secretary  of  legation  at  Paris,  carried  this  de- 
spatch from  Paris  to  Madrid  and  delivered  it  into  the  hands 
of  Soule.  Soule*,  elated  at  winning  Buchanan  and  Mason  to 
his  views,  had  again  indulged  in  glittering  hopes,  but  these 
were  now  dashed  by  the  measured  words  of  the  Secretary 
of  State.  After  reading  and  pondering  the  despatch,  he 
said :  "  My  amazement  is  without  limit.  I  am  stunned.  Of 
one  thing  only  I  am  certain,  and  that  is,  that  it  is  the  irre- 


1  Soule  to  Marcy,  London,  Oct.  20th.  The  manifesto  is  dated  Aix-la- 
Chapelle,  Oct.  18th. 

a  It  has  been  urged  that  Buchanan  and  Mason  did  not  understand  the 
conclusions  of  the  manifesto  as  Soule  and  every  one  else  did.  See  Life 
of  Buchanan,  Curtis,  vol.  ii.  p.  136.  Field,  pp.  75, 100.  Stripped  of  un- 
necessary verbiage,  it  does  not  seem  as  if  the  intent  could  have  been  made 
plainer.  *  Marcy  to  Soule,  Nov.  13th. 


548  PURGE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1854 

sponsible  work  of  Mr.  Marcy.  The  President  can  neither 
have  inspired  nor  sanctioned  it." ' 

Keflection  soon  convinced  Soule  that  personal  dignity  re- 
quired  him  to  throw  up  the  Spanish  mission,  He  and  Marcy 
could  not  work  together.  After  his  resignation  he  gleefully 
reported  a  circumstance  which  demonstrated  that  Marcy's 
plan  of  peaceful  purchase  was  impracticable.  The  minister 
of  foreign  affairs  had  declared  in  the  Cortes  that,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  government, "  to  part  with  Cuba  would  be  to 
part  with  national  honor."  This  statement  was  received 
with  unanimous  and  entire  approbation  by  the  representa- 
tives, and  in  the  galleries  with  " frantic  applause."2  Yet 
Soule  did  not  for  a  moment  give  up  the  idea  of  the  acquisi- 
tion of  Cuba,  but  under  the  present  Secretary  of  State  he 
felt  that  he  should  linger  at  Madrid  "  in  languid  impotence." ' 
He  might,  however,  be  able  to  do  something  for  the  cause  at 
Washington.  The  resignation  of  Soule  ends  this  inglorious 
chapter  of  our  diplomatic  history.* 

The  reception  of  the  Ostend  manifesto  is  a  mark  of  the 
difference  between  the  notions  of  international  justice  which 
to-day  prevail  and  those  of  the  decade  of  1850-60.5  Should 


1  Field,  p.  79.  «  Soule  to  Marcy,  Dec.  23d. 

8  Soule  to  Marcy,  Dec.  17th. 

*  Soon  after  Soule's  resignation,  the  differences  between  the  two  gov- 
ernments in  regard  to  the  Black  Warrior  affair  were  arranged  in  conformity 
to  the  ideas  of  the  Secretary  of  State  as  declared  in  his  despatch  of  June 
22d.  The  pacific  language  of  Perry,  whom  Soule  left  in  charge  of  affairs, 
aided  in  effecting  a  settlement.  See  statement  of  the  Spanish  minister  of 
foreign  affairs  in  the  Cortes,  May  3d,  1855.  Also  letter  of  H.  J.  Perry  to 
the  President,  dated  Madrid,  April  27th,  1855,  published  in  National  In- 
telligencer, May  22d,  1855. 

6  In  1889  Secretary  Elaine  was  supposed  to  be  favorable  to  a  Jingo  pol- 
icy. Aug.  29th,  1890,  he  said  in  a  public  speech :  "  We  are  not  seeking 
annexation  of  territory.  Certainly  we  do  not  desire  it  unless  it  should 
come  by  the  volition  of  a  people  who  might  ask  the  priceless  boon  of  a 
place  under  the  flag  of  the  Union.  I  feel  sure  that  for  a  long  time  to  come 
the  people  of  the  United  States  will  be  wisely  content  with  our  present 
area,  and  not  launch  upon  any  scheme  of  annexation." 


Om.  VI]  THE  OSTEND  MANIFESTO  549 

any  three  ministers  issue  a  similar  document  now,  public 
opinion  would  force  their  recall  upon  any  administration. 
The  anti-slavery  sentiment,  however,  was  then  well  up  to 
our  present  ideas.  One  journal  said  the  manifesto  was 
"  weak  in  its  reasonings  and  atrocious  in  its  recommenda- 
tions ;" '  another  called  it  the  "  manifesto  of  the  brigands," 
whose  declaration  meant :  "  If  Spain  will  not  sell  us  Cuba, 
we  must  steal  it  in  order  to  preserve  our  national  existence."  * 
Naturally  enough,  the  relation  which  the  scheme  bore  to 
the  maintenance  of  slavery  aifected  the  people  who  had 
bitterly  opposed  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill.  It  seemed  to 
them  a  recommendation  of  an  offer  of  one  hundred  and 
twenty  million  dollars  to  Spain  to  give  up  the  emancipation 
of  slaves  in  Cuba  and  to  accomplish  likewise  the  addition  of 
two  or  three  slave  States  to  the  Union.3  But  if  a  peaceful 
purchase  could  not  be  effected,  treasure  must  be  wasted  and 
lives  sacrificed  in  order  that  slavery  might  extend  its  power. 
European  opinion  of  this  manifesto,  except  that  of  the  ac- 
tive revolutionists,  was  well  expressed  in  a  carefully  written 
article  in  the  London  Times,  which  began :  "  The  diplomacy 
of  the  United  States  is  certainly  a  very  singular  profession." 
It  was  singular  because  the  diplomats  did  not  hatch  their 
mischief  in  secret.  A  report  of  their  plot  was  printed  by 
order  of  Congress.  In  this  Ostend  manifesto  a  policy  was 
avowed  which,  if  declared  by  one  of  the  great  European 
powers,  would  set  the  whole  continent  in  "  a  blaze ;"  or,  if 
seriously  entertained  by  the  United  States  government,  it 
would  justify  a  declaration  of  war.  The  argument  was  ex- 
actly the  same  as  that  used  by  Russia  in  the  last  century  to 
vindicate  her  interference  in  Poland.4 


1  New  York  Evening  Post,  March  6th,  1855.  The  document  was  pub- 
lished in  the  newspapers  on  that  day. 

9  New  York  Tribune,  March  8th,  1855. 

3  If  Cuba  had  been  acquired,  no  doubt  can  exist  that  it  would  have  been 
admitted  into  the  Union  as  one,  two,  or  three  slave  States. 

*  London  Times,  March  24th,  1855.  This  journal  generally  leaned  to 
the  Democratic  party. 


550  PIERCE'S  ADMINISTRATION  [1864 

It  is  perhaps  unjust  to  attach  to  the  administration  of 
Pierce  the  discredit  of  the  Ostend  manifesto,  for  the  policy 
therein  set  forth  was  disavowed  by  the  Secretary  of  State 
in  the  name  of  the  President.  Yet  as  the  Democratic  party 
indirectly  approved  it  by  the  nomination  for  President  of 
the  man  who  was  first  to  sign  it,  it  settled  down  in  the  pop- 
ular mind  as  one  of  the  measures  of  the  Pierce  administra- 
tion. Any  good  in  the  Democratic  conduct  of  the  govern- 
ment from  1853  to  1857  has  been  almost  wholly  obliterated 
by  the  Kansas  -  Nebraska  bill  and  the  Ostend  manifesto. 
The  domestic  policy  was  characterized  by  an  utter  disregard 
of  plighted  faith ;  the  avowed  foreign  policy  was  marked  by 
the  lack  of  justice  as  understood  by  all  civilized  nations  of 
the  world. 


END  OF  VOL.  I. 


Printed  in  the  United  States  of  America 


THE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  SANTA  CRUZ 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  DATE  stamped  below. 


DEC  3    1969 


FEB  1  0  1971 


JFEB  28  REID 


50m-6,'67(H2523s8)2373 


